[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ever onward
>>>>> Margaret Wasserman writes:
Margaret> Are you suggesting that all NETCONF/SSH nodes need to have
Margaret> special SSH clients or servers that know that requests on
Margaret> port <netconf> should go into the special netconf SSH
Margaret> application while requests on port <ssh> should not?
I do not believe that operators will start to regularily interactively
type XML instead of CLI. The standard SSH client is great for
interactive access and of course for tunneling all those insecure
protocols that are still around.
In my view, however, netconf after all is a programmatic interface and
so you will have special programs (perhaps just scripts) to talk
netconf. And then using a special netconf port is more a feature and
has virtually no costs since I expect that every reasonable
implementations allows to specify the port to connect to.
Margaret> I thought that one of the points of this excercise was to
Margaret> make sure that we could use standard SSH clients and
Margaret> servers.
Being able to use a standard SSH client for debugging and perhaps as a
very low-cost solution is cool. But I expect that we will see
libraries for many programming/scripting languages which provide you
netconf primitives to play with and for these libraries it is just
important to be able to leverage the ssh protocol and implementation,
not the port number.
Margaret> And, BTW, I think that there will end up being two netconf
Margaret> subsystems based on recent "role" discussions:
Margaret> "netconf-agent" and "netconf-manager".
I have not heard of this discussion before, so I prefer to not
comment.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>