Mailing List Archive

Re: [External] SDx open standard?
Well, the "software-defined thing" which started it all, would be
"software-defined networking." And this was widely implemented in
OpenFlow.

One could use OpenFlow to implement SDWAN or SDAccess, and in fact, we
did the latter, for a while (just in the lab/internal, not suitable
for release). But the vendors decided to implement their stuff on top
of something else instead. The temptation to make money was too great
for them to use the existing standard, even though it was already
implemented in their own products.

--
Hunter Fuller
Router Jockey
VBH Annex B-5
+1 256 824 5331

Office of Information Technology
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Network Engineering

On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 8:07 AM Alex K. <nsp.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I was thinking, throughout last design sessions with my customers, those
> vendors are really pushing hard for their "SDN something" solutions
> adoption.
>
> SD WAN, SD access, Software defined everything, are all closed standards,
> aren't they? I was wondering why will we abandon the model for open
> standards, which had served as so well for many-many years? There's no real
> world product, be it network-device-white-box or SDx controller,
> implementing an open standard, isn't it?
>
> Sure, 99.99999% of those offerings, are really suitable for enterprises
> only and maybe (just maybe) a data center. And while network-as-a-service
> is really a thing for service providers only, I was thinking, is it really
> a good thing, to base your network, be it enterprise or other, on closed
> standard?
>
> So what do you think? I'm genuinely interested in our community thoughts on
> that. Is there is, an open software defined network standard or is it
> really a good thing, to sell your soul to a single vendor, for years to
> come?
>
> Best regards.
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
That's what I'm asking about.

While the thread Mark referenced, deals (in my humble opinion) primarily
with automation side of things, my question is how the whole SDN thing
became vendor-specific-closed-protocol?

I'm not talking specifically about any particular facet of SDN, such as
automation or forwarding plane control over the network (though l
personally most interested in the latter, at least for now) or anything
else - rather, how 100% of solutions I've been presented over past year or
so, are all closed code-proprietary protocol solutions?

Not a single one was based on an open standard, such as Open Flow, not a
single one is able to interoperate with others, though one particular SDN
solution will cost *a third *same vendor "traditional" standard compliant
equipment. That's for me, was begging the question - am I missing something
here and I'm really be better off by selling my soul to a single vendor for
eternity, rather than opting for standard compliant box? If there's such
one to begin with?

Best regards.

?????? ??? ??, 15 ???? 2020, 19:26, ??? Hunter Fuller ?<hf0002@uah.edu>:

> Well, the "software-defined thing" which started it all, would be
> "software-defined networking." And this was widely implemented in
> OpenFlow.
>
> One could use OpenFlow to implement SDWAN or SDAccess, and in fact, we
> did the latter, for a while (just in the lab/internal, not suitable
> for release). But the vendors decided to implement their stuff on top
> of something else instead. The temptation to make money was too great
> for them to use the existing standard, even though it was already
> implemented in their own products.
>
> --
> Hunter Fuller
> Router Jockey
> VBH Annex B-5
> +1 256 824 5331
>
> Office of Information Technology
> The University of Alabama in Huntsville
> Network Engineering
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 8:07 AM Alex K. <nsp.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I was thinking, throughout last design sessions with my customers, those
> > vendors are really pushing hard for their "SDN something" solutions
> > adoption.
> >
> > SD WAN, SD access, Software defined everything, are all closed standards,
> > aren't they? I was wondering why will we abandon the model for open
> > standards, which had served as so well for many-many years? There's no
> real
> > world product, be it network-device-white-box or SDx controller,
> > implementing an open standard, isn't it?
> >
> > Sure, 99.99999% of those offerings, are really suitable for enterprises
> > only and maybe (just maybe) a data center. And while network-as-a-service
> > is really a thing for service providers only, I was thinking, is it
> really
> > a good thing, to base your network, be it enterprise or other, on closed
> > standard?
> >
> > So what do you think? I'm genuinely interested in our community thoughts
> on
> > that. Is there is, an open software defined network standard or is it
> > really a good thing, to sell your soul to a single vendor, for years to
> > come?
> >
> > Best regards.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
On 15/Mar/20 20:04, Alex K. wrote:
> That's what I'm asking about.
>
> While the thread Mark referenced, deals (in my humble opinion) primarily
> with automation side of things, my question is how the whole SDN thing
> became vendor-specific-closed-protocol?

So the thread I shared is little to do with automation, and all to do
with how the industry has spent the past 10 years distracting itself
with finding reasons to standardize what has, for a long time, been
either in-house, custom-designed network operation tools and systems, or
disparate systems working in silos to give operators a consolidated view
of the network.

Several operators have had some SDN-like thing and/or some
automation-like thing for decades. What we've been struggling with since
2010 was how we standardize this, for some reason or other. This is how
and why you are ending up with (not proprietary, but) competing
solutions and ideas, which then manifest as, well, proprietary.

Meanwhile, a ton of network operators continue to run their networks
with their customer SDN- and automation-like thingies, paying minimal or
no attention to all the confusion going on in the industry that has cost
us 10 years.

Personally, what the last decade taught me is to sniff out all the snake
oil, and not waste my time on things that are trying to reinvent some of
the basics that, despite the ubiquity of the Internet, we cannot simply
give up to "greater intelligence and optimization" because, well, that's
just unnecessary overhead beyond what we can already build and play with
nicely today.

You can tell how much I love SDN, SD-WAN, IoT, Big Data and 5G :-).

Now because of "Cory", WFH is about to be touted as "a technology" :-\...

#TheIndustrysAddictionToBuzzWords

Mark.

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 6:04 PM
> To: Hunter Fuller <hf0002@uah.edu>
>
> That's what I'm asking about.
>
> While the thread Mark referenced, deals (in my humble opinion) primarily
> with automation side of things, my question is how the whole SDN thing
> became vendor-specific-closed-protocol?
>
> I'm not talking specifically about any particular facet of SDN, such as
> automation or forwarding plane control over the network (though l
> personally most interested in the latter, at least for now) or anything else -
> rather, how 100% of solutions I've been presented over past year or so, are
> all closed code-proprietary protocol solutions?
>
> Not a single one was based on an open standard, such as Open Flow, not a
> single one is able to interoperate with others, though one particular SDN
> solution will cost *a third *same vendor "traditional" standard compliant
> equipment. That's for me, was begging the question - am I missing
> something here and I'm really be better off by selling my soul to a single
> vendor for eternity, rather than opting for standard compliant box? If there's
> such one to begin with?
>
The standardization is coming, check out https://www.mef.net/mef-3-0-sd-wan

Though the only thing that can be meaningfully standardized really are "some" mechanisms/protocols used to disseminate "some" decisions. -but that should be enough for basic inerop between vendors.
How the controller comes to a decision is each vendors secret sauce (and as you might have guessed, there always will be some decisions that need to communicated using novel/custom mechanisms -hence my use of "some") .

adam

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
> The standardization is coming, check out
https://www.mef.net/mef-3-0-sd-wan

I spent 10 min browsing MEF web site and still do not know what "MEF"
stands for ... Looks to me like yet one more commercial entity to drain a
little bit of cash out of the vendors while perhaps help with marketing and
sales a bit.

Is this the same as Microsoft's MEF:

"The Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF) is a library in .NET that
enables greater reuse of applications and components."

Thx,
R.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:11 PM <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:

> > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 6:04 PM
> > To: Hunter Fuller <hf0002@uah.edu>
> >
> > That's what I'm asking about.
> >
> > While the thread Mark referenced, deals (in my humble opinion) primarily
> > with automation side of things, my question is how the whole SDN thing
> > became vendor-specific-closed-protocol?
> >
> > I'm not talking specifically about any particular facet of SDN, such as
> > automation or forwarding plane control over the network (though l
> > personally most interested in the latter, at least for now) or anything
> else -
> > rather, how 100% of solutions I've been presented over past year or so,
> are
> > all closed code-proprietary protocol solutions?
> >
> > Not a single one was based on an open standard, such as Open Flow, not a
> > single one is able to interoperate with others, though one particular SDN
> > solution will cost *a third *same vendor "traditional" standard compliant
> > equipment. That's for me, was begging the question - am I missing
> > something here and I'm really be better off by selling my soul to a
> single
> > vendor for eternity, rather than opting for standard compliant box? If
> there's
> > such one to begin with?
> >
> The standardization is coming, check out
> https://www.mef.net/mef-3-0-sd-wan
>
> Though the only thing that can be meaningfully standardized really are
> "some" mechanisms/protocols used to disseminate "some" decisions. -but that
> should be enough for basic inerop between vendors.
> How the controller comes to a decision is each vendors secret sauce (and
> as you might have guessed, there always will be some decisions that need to
> communicated using novel/custom mechanisms -hence my use of "some") .
>
> adam
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
Metro Ethernet Forum - https://www.mef.net/

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 15:03, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

> > The standardization is coming, check out
> https://www.mef.net/mef-3-0-sd-wan
>
> I spent 10 min browsing MEF web site and still do not know what "MEF"
> stands for ... Looks to me like yet one more commercial entity to drain a
> little bit of cash out of the vendors while perhaps help with marketing and
> sales a bit.
>
> Is this the same as Microsoft's MEF:
>
> "The Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF) is a library in .NET that
> enables greater reuse of applications and components."
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:11 PM <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 6:04 PM
> > > To: Hunter Fuller <hf0002@uah.edu>
> > >
> > > That's what I'm asking about.
> > >
> > > While the thread Mark referenced, deals (in my humble opinion)
> primarily
> > > with automation side of things, my question is how the whole SDN thing
> > > became vendor-specific-closed-protocol?
> > >
> > > I'm not talking specifically about any particular facet of SDN, such as
> > > automation or forwarding plane control over the network (though l
> > > personally most interested in the latter, at least for now) or anything
> > else -
> > > rather, how 100% of solutions I've been presented over past year or so,
> > are
> > > all closed code-proprietary protocol solutions?
> > >
> > > Not a single one was based on an open standard, such as Open Flow, not
> a
> > > single one is able to interoperate with others, though one particular
> SDN
> > > solution will cost *a third *same vendor "traditional" standard
> compliant
> > > equipment. That's for me, was begging the question - am I missing
> > > something here and I'm really be better off by selling my soul to a
> > single
> > > vendor for eternity, rather than opting for standard compliant box? If
> > there's
> > > such one to begin with?
> > >
> > The standardization is coming, check out
> > https://www.mef.net/mef-3-0-sd-wan
> >
> > Though the only thing that can be meaningfully standardized really are
> > "some" mechanisms/protocols used to disseminate "some" decisions. -but
> that
> > should be enough for basic inerop between vendors.
> > How the controller comes to a decision is each vendors secret sauce (and
> > as you might have guessed, there always will be some decisions that need
> to
> > communicated using novel/custom mechanisms -hence my use of "some") .
> >
> > adam
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
>> The standardization is coming, check out
> https://www.mef.net/mef-3-0-sd-wan
>
> I spent 10 min browsing MEF web site and still do not know what "MEF"
> stands for ... Looks to me like yet one more commercial entity to drain a
> little bit of cash out of the vendors while perhaps help with marketing and
> sales a bit.
>
> Is this the same as Microsoft's MEF:
>
> "The Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF) is a library in .NET that
> enables greater reuse of applications and components."

Metro Ethernet Forum. They've been around for a while.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
On Thursday, 26 March, 2020 15:15, sthaug@nethelp.no said:

>> I spent 10 min browsing MEF web site and still do not know what "MEF"
>> stands for ... Looks to me like yet one more commercial entity to drain a
>> little bit of cash out of the vendors while perhaps help with marketing and
>> sales a bit.
>
> Metro Ethernet Forum. They've been around for a while.
>

In fairness, that term is almost entirely absent from the web site, as far as I can see.

Is it an expansion that's been deliberately dropped in the face of expanding to work on SDN, NDV, et al beyond their original Metro Ethernet scope? And now MEF is just MEF?

Regards,
Tim.

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
>>> I spent 10 min browsing MEF web site and still do not know what "MEF"
>>> stands for ... Looks to me like yet one more commercial entity to drain a
>>> little bit of cash out of the vendors while perhaps help with marketing and
>>> sales a bit.
>>
>> Metro Ethernet Forum. They've been around for a while.
>>
>
> In fairness, that term is almost entirely absent from the web site, as far as I can see.
>
> Is it an expansion that's been deliberately dropped in the face of expanding to work on SDN, NDV, et al beyond their original Metro Ethernet scope? And now MEF is just MEF?

No idea. But it sure *sounds* like rather significant scope creep.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
> On Mar 26, 2020, at 8:28 AM, "tim@pelican.org" <tim@pelican.org> wrote:
>
> ?On Thursday, 26 March, 2020 15:15, sthaug@nethelp.no said:
>
>>> I spent 10 min browsing MEF web site and still do not know what "MEF"
>>> stands for ... Looks to me like yet one more commercial entity to drain a
>>> little bit of cash out of the vendors while perhaps help with marketing and
>>> sales a bit.
>>
>> Metro Ethernet Forum. They've been around for a while.
>>
>
> In fairness, that term is almost entirely absent from the web site, as far as I can see.
>
> Is it an expansion that's been deliberately dropped in the face of expanding to work on SDN, NDV, et al beyond their original Metro Ethernet scope? And now MEF is just MEF?

Yes - MEF is now just “MEF Forum”. The Metro Ethernet expansion went away a few years ago as there was some scope increase to cover more technologies than Ethernet.

AJ
- co-editor of MEF70.x, the document that was referenced in the thread.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
> sthaug@nethelp.no
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:42 PM
>
> >>> I spent 10 min browsing MEF web site and still do not know what "MEF"
> >>> stands for ... Looks to me like yet one more commercial entity to
> >>> drain a little bit of cash out of the vendors while perhaps help
> >>> with marketing and sales a bit.
> >>
> >> Metro Ethernet Forum. They've been around for a while.
> >>
> >
> > In fairness, that term is almost entirely absent from the web site, as
far as I
> can see.
> >
> > Is it an expansion that's been deliberately dropped in the face of
expanding
> to work on SDN, NDV, et al beyond their original Metro Ethernet scope?
And
> now MEF is just MEF?
>
> No idea. But it sure *sounds* like rather significant scope creep.
>
How I view MEF is in their role of facilitator/mediator for inter-operator
standards.
Their original work on Metro Ethernet standards and network certification
was very helpful for the industry (certainly some ~8 years back when ME was
blooming and everyone was jumping the bandwagon).
Now with the hype around SDN NFV and automation of service provisioning they
seem like a natural choice of existing body for mediating
inter-operator/provider standards (work on LSO...) they have stellar
materials on NFV and SDN I recommend everyone to read in order to fill in
the gaps and unite our dictionary (same like for the ME dictionary)
And recently they are doing similar thing for SD-WAN...

adam

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
Perhaps that, and also, I think they may be substituting that term "mef" for
"ce" more recently. ....perhaps to imply that its capabilities are now
beyond the "metro" and extend into "carrier" space and beyond. Trying to
make some educated guesses/recollections.

-Aaron

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
tim@pelican.org
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:25 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] [External] SDx open standard?

On Thursday, 26 March, 2020 15:15, sthaug@nethelp.no said:

>> I spent 10 min browsing MEF web site and still do not know what "MEF"
>> stands for ... Looks to me like yet one more commercial entity to drain
a
>> little bit of cash out of the vendors while perhaps help with marketing
and
>> sales a bit.
>
> Metro Ethernet Forum. They've been around for a while.
>

In fairness, that term is almost entirely absent from the web site, as far
as I can see.

Is it an expansion that's been deliberately dropped in the face of expanding
to work on SDN, NDV, et al beyond their original Metro Ethernet scope? And
now MEF is just MEF?

Regards,
Tim.

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
Yeah, while certifying for mef-cecp, you gain an appreciation for their
purpose in that space at least. (they do have other certifications). Lots
of focus on functions and standards that exists at UNI's, ENNI's, services
in between, etc.

MEF has 3 scopes of certifications...
-Services - you as a SP can actually work with MEF (IOMETRIX) and get your
network actually stamped and certified by MEF
-Gear - vendors submit their equipment to MEF for testing (possibly onsite
at vendor location) for proving out standard MEF-type service (ELINE, ELAN,
ETREE, EACCESS, etc) and gain MEF stamp of approval
-Professional - like MEF-CECP, etc, people can get career certifications

I recall they started with MEF, then MEF 2.0, now MEF 3.0

https://www.mef.net/certification/mef-certification-programs


-Aaron

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
adamv0025@netconsultings.com
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 12:00 PM
To: sthaug@nethelp.no; tim@pelican.org
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] [External] SDx open standard?



> sthaug@nethelp.no
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:42 PM
>
> >>> I spent 10 min browsing MEF web site and still do not know what "MEF"
> >>> stands for ... Looks to me like yet one more commercial entity to
> >>> drain a little bit of cash out of the vendors while perhaps help
> >>> with marketing and sales a bit.
> >>
> >> Metro Ethernet Forum. They've been around for a while.
> >>
> >
> > In fairness, that term is almost entirely absent from the web site, as
far as I
> can see.
> >
> > Is it an expansion that's been deliberately dropped in the face of
expanding
> to work on SDN, NDV, et al beyond their original Metro Ethernet scope?
And
> now MEF is just MEF?
>
> No idea. But it sure *sounds* like rather significant scope creep.
>
How I view MEF is in their role of facilitator/mediator for inter-operator
standards.
Their original work on Metro Ethernet standards and network certification
was very helpful for the industry (certainly some ~8 years back when ME was
blooming and everyone was jumping the bandwagon).
Now with the hype around SDN NFV and automation of service provisioning they
seem like a natural choice of existing body for mediating
inter-operator/provider standards (work on LSO...) they have stellar
materials on NFV and SDN I recommend everyone to read in order to fill in
the gaps and unite our dictionary (same like for the ME dictionary)
And recently they are doing similar thing for SD-WAN...

adam

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
> From: Aaron Gould <aaron1@gvtc.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 5:48 PM
>
> Yeah, while certifying for mef-cecp, you gain an appreciation for
> their purpose in that space at least. (they do have other
> certifications). Lots of focus on functions and standards that exists
> at UNI's, ENNI's, services in between, etc.
>
> MEF has 3 scopes of certifications...
> -Services - you as a SP can actually work with MEF (IOMETRIX) and get
> your network actually stamped and certified by MEF -Gear - vendors
> submit their equipment to MEF for testing (possibly onsite at vendor
> location) for proving out standard MEF-type service (ELINE, ELAN,
> ETREE, EACCESS, etc) and gain MEF stamp of approval -Professional -
> like MEF-CECP, etc, people can get career certifications
>
> I recall they started with MEF, then MEF 2.0, now MEF 3.0
>
> https://www.mef.net/certification/mef-certification-programs
>
>
The one I was referring to is
https://www.mefprocert.com/mef-sncp-sdn-nfv-overview
Definitely worth going through all the materials.

And then there's the new one related to sd-wan:
https://www.mefprocert.com/mef-sdcp-overview
-haven't studied for this one, so can't make any recommendations.


adam


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
On 26/Mar/20 17:41, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:

> No idea. But it sure *sounds* like rather significant scope creep.

Well, at some point, it became clear that the world was interested in
generalized Internet access, regardless of how it was carried :-).

Mark.

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
On 26/Mar/20 18:59, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:

> How I view MEF is in their role of facilitator/mediator for inter-operator
> standards.
> Their original work on Metro Ethernet standards and network certification
> was very helpful for the industry (certainly some ~8 years back when ME was
> blooming and everyone was jumping the bandwagon).
> Now with the hype around SDN NFV and automation of service provisioning they
> seem like a natural choice of existing body for mediating
> inter-operator/provider standards (work on LSO...) they have stellar
> materials on NFV and SDN I recommend everyone to read in order to fill in
> the gaps and unite our dictionary (same like for the ME dictionary)
> And recently they are doing similar thing for SD-WAN...

So for some time, we followed this work, particularly as it entered into
the IP space (between 2013 - 2016). While there is plenty of material on
all manner of interconnection strategies, apart from operator support
for the spec., I don't know of anyone actually implementing and using
what has been defined.

Not trying to bash the MEF, but just wondering where all the good work
can be found in the wild.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
On 26/Mar/20 19:41, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Perhaps that, and also, I think they may be substituting that term "mef" for
> "ce" more recently. ....perhaps to imply that its capabilities are now
> beyond the "metro" and extend into "carrier" space and beyond. Trying to
> make some educated guesses/recollections.

Think of MEF in 2020 compared to 2007, the same way these company's
names evolved:

* CVS (formerly Consumer Value Stores).
* MAC (formerly Make-up Art Cosmetics).
* GEICO (formerly Government Employees Insurance Company).
* AT&T (formerly American Telephonoe & Telegraph).
* Eskom (formerly a combination of ESCOM [Electricity Supply
Commission] + EVKOM [Elektrisiteitsvoorsieningskommissie]).

Mark.

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
> Mark Tinka
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 12:23 PM
>
> On 26/Mar/20 18:59, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:
>
> > How I view MEF is in their role of facilitator/mediator for
> > inter-operator standards.
> > Their original work on Metro Ethernet standards and network
> > certification was very helpful for the industry (certainly some ~8
> > years back when ME was blooming and everyone was jumping the
> bandwagon).
> > Now with the hype around SDN NFV and automation of service
> > provisioning they seem like a natural choice of existing body for
> > mediating inter-operator/provider standards (work on LSO...) they have
> > stellar materials on NFV and SDN I recommend everyone to read in order
> > to fill in the gaps and unite our dictionary (same like for the ME
dictionary)
> > And recently they are doing similar thing for SD-WAN...
>
> So for some time, we followed this work, particularly as it entered into
the IP
> space (between 2013 - 2016). While there is plenty of material on all
manner
> of interconnection strategies, apart from operator support for the spec.,
I
> don't know of anyone actually implementing and using what has been
> defined.
>
> Not trying to bash the MEF, but just wondering where all the good work can
> be found in the wild.
>
In big carriers and smaller folks supporting big carriers or in other words
or more generally in folks that want to have a common dictionary with each
other.

adam

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
On 9/Apr/20 10:40, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:

> In big carriers and smaller folks supporting big carriers or in other words
> or more generally in folks that want to have a common dictionary with each
> other.

Yes, that's the goal.

But what I'm asking is anyone we know of publicly implementing LSO et al?

I know many carriers that are behind developing and supporting the
spec., but don't know who is actually using it in practice, particularly
with a bunch of enterprise infrastructure moving to some kind of public
cloud.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
> From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 9:45 AM
>
> On 9/Apr/20 10:40, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:
>
> > In big carriers and smaller folks supporting big carriers or in other
> > words or more generally in folks that want to have a common dictionary
> > with each other.
>
> Yes, that's the goal.
>
> But what I'm asking is anyone we know of publicly implementing LSO et al?
>
It's not an on/off switch, but more like a gradual evolution towards LSO (as it's being standardized at the same time).
It's never a green field deployment, there's a whole host of existing automation infrastructure & OSS/BSS systems that are being and have been evolved/maintained on a business as usual (BAU) bases and everybody using custom APIs to everyone else - now what LSO is aiming for is the synergy in this space across multiple operators -a common API language and base functionality to slowly evolve towards.
So the correct question to ask would be what level or percentage of LSO synergy do particular two entities have among themselves.

But I seem to recall seeing some mention of LSO trials in some MEF newsletter (maybe Verizon? or att? can't recall)...

> I know many carriers that are behind developing and supporting the spec.,
> but don't know who is actually using it in practice, particularly with a bunch of
> enterprise infrastructure moving to some kind of public cloud.
>
It covers the "cloud" part as well...

adam

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
On 9/Apr/20 11:35, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:

> It's not an on/off switch, but more like a gradual evolution towards LSO (as it's being standardized at the same time).
> It's never a green field deployment, there's a whole host of existing automation infrastructure & OSS/BSS systems that are being and have been evolved/maintained on a business as usual (BAU) bases and everybody using custom APIs to everyone else - now what LSO is aiming for is the synergy in this space across multiple operators -a common API language and base functionality to slowly evolve towards.
> So the correct question to ask would be what level or percentage of LSO synergy do particular two entities have among themselves.

Not contesting the goal, but rather, who is actually doing it.

We were a MEF member for some time and attended several meetings back in
the day where LSO was being defined. So it's not a new concept, it's
been around for at least half of the past decade.

Also, remember we had a lengthy discussion about "automation" a few
months ago, and what it means to everyone. LSO is not that different,
and for me, the question is whether all the good work defining the
framework has actually gained any patronage, or if people are treating
it the same way as they do SD-this and SD-that?

Personally, I cannot find anyone actively implementing the LSO
framework, even though many companies (especially carriers) actively
work on defining it.


> But I seem to recall seeing some mention of LSO trials in some MEF newsletter (maybe Verizon? or att? can't recall)...

Those have been plenty, just like Segment Routing, with no (or a small
handful) coming out to actually tell their story.


> It covers the "cloud" part as well...

Again, the framework is comprehensive. Will Amazon, for example, bite?

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
> From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 11:10 AM
>
> On 9/Apr/20 11:35, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:
>
> > It's not an on/off switch, but more like a gradual evolution towards LSO (as
> it's being standardized at the same time).
> > It's never a green field deployment, there's a whole host of existing
> automation infrastructure & OSS/BSS systems that are being and have been
> evolved/maintained on a business as usual (BAU) bases and everybody using
> custom APIs to everyone else - now what LSO is aiming for is the synergy in
> this space across multiple operators -a common API language and base
> functionality to slowly evolve towards.
> > So the correct question to ask would be what level or percentage of LSO
> synergy do particular two entities have among themselves.
>
> Not contesting the goal, but rather, who is actually doing it.
>
> We were a MEF member for some time and attended several meetings back
> in the day where LSO was being defined. So it's not a new concept, it's been
> around for at least half of the past decade.
>
> Also, remember we had a lengthy discussion about "automation" a few
> months ago, and what it means to everyone. LSO is not that different, and
> for me, the question is whether all the good work defining the framework
> has actually gained any patronage, or if people are treating it the same way
> as they do SD-this and SD-that?
>
> Personally, I cannot find anyone actively implementing the LSO framework,
> even though many companies (especially carriers) actively work on defining
> it.
>
Well one could take a view as: let's say LSO is baked into ONAP which is based on ECOMP therefore at&t is making some use of LSO in one way or the other (or anyone using ONAP for that matter).
Obviously the reality is much more complicated and we can be asking variety of questions like, what percentage of all their incarnation of ECOMP/ONAP APIs align with the standard? Do their intra-provider APIs align more with LSO than their inter-provider APIs? etc...


> > It covers the "cloud" part as well...
>
> Again, the framework is comprehensive. Will Amazon, for example, bite?
>
Yeah that's a good question. Amazon/Google/Microsoft... if one of them adopts the rest would need to follow.

adam


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [External] SDx open standard? [ In reply to ]
On 9/Apr/20 13:26, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:

> Well one could take a view as: let's say LSO is baked into ONAP which is based on ECOMP therefore at&t is making some use of LSO in one way or the other (or anyone using ONAP for that matter).
> Obviously the reality is much more complicated and we can be asking variety of questions like, what percentage of all their incarnation of ECOMP/ONAP APIs align with the standard? Do their intra-provider APIs align more with LSO than their inter-provider APIs? etc...

We very well could (be asking a variety of questions)...



> Yeah that's a good question. Amazon/Google/Microsoft... if one of them adopts the rest would need to follow.

Except that much of the "automation" inertia the industry has been
getting over the past decade is from the little breadcrumbs they choose
to feed us, the commoners, with :-).

They are already highly automated, each for their own unique businesses.
I find it hard that they will be interested in standardizing much of
that, beyond a front-end. But, I could be wrong...

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/