[153495] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Configuration Systems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jun 7 14:57:14 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+qj4S9KPs-eW5TQ_XbvMU_9nVS5mJH5d70fPzo5b9Q_ksHKqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:51:51 -0700
To: Andrew Latham <lathama@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Andrew Latham wrote:
> Jonathan
>=20
> That is the exact question I have asked myself many times. All of the
> major players in Configuration management have a "client" program that
> must run and at times requires some libraries that are newer than the
> platforms a company may need to support or that clients may wish
> supported. Another issue is the secure communication over a
> proprietary or SSH connection and not allowing secured VLANs or other
> services like RSH and Telnet over a point to point connection.
>=20
I would argue that not allowing telnet/rsh in favor of requiring SSH is =
a good thing.
As to the client program, so long as the system makes the client =
available via
open source and/or publishes the required client API, you should be able =
to
work around any library issues or system age issues by developing your =
own
client component.
> Also you will find that the demand for cloud systems and the complex
> languages used in the "Configuration Management Systems" do not easily
> translate to the existing and developing cloud infrastructure.
This is a hard problem to solve. Not the least of the difficulties is =
the fact that
if you ask 50 engineers to define "Cloud", you will get at least 100 =
definitions
many of which are incompatible to the point of mutually exclusive.
Owen
>=20
> and stuff...
>=20
>=20
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Jonathan Herbert =
<jwherbert@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>=20
>> Out of curiosity, why are you reinventing the wheel here?
>>=20
>> Don't take this the wrong way- I'm just curious why you're building
>> something new. What does Enablement do that the other technologies =
you've
>> mentioned doesn't?
>>=20
>> Jonathan
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Andrew Latham <lathama@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Lurker speaking... beware...
>>>=20
>>> I have been talking with some folks from various industries about
>>> configuration systems ala Bcfg2, Puppet, Chef, and others. Many of
>>> them care far too much about the current nodes configuration status =
as
>>> some admin had logged in and changed something. I am authoring a
>>> system called Enablement that uses what ever technology needed (ssh,
>>> telnet over admin vlan, rsh, etc...) to push a planned system/config
>>> to the device. Monitoring and auditing are all the same at the =
moment
>>> as we need historical data on when a service or port started and
>>> stopped offering its planned or unplanned service. For a meeting
>>> Thursday I am looking forward to the future of configuring systems.
>>> My idea is push + netblock scanning of services. With stacks for
>>> clouds we can startup and shut down nodes easy. Would a bend over
>>> backwards config reader for all the "Configuration Management =
Systems"
>>> be the best medium ground from the service provider point of view?
>>>=20
>>> Enablement.... Send another man to fight on the front line.
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> ~ Andrew "lathama" Latham lathama@gmail.com http://lathama.net ~
>>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> ~ Andrew "lathama" Latham lathama@gmail.com http://lathama.net ~
