[190949] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NFV Solution Evaluation Methodology
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Thu Aug 4 02:21:07 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>,
Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:20:58 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAJL_ZMNB_rxkXa0BJ-tkGp45wi-ENmJu2o3VpkpiX2q_XOWtkw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 3/Aug/16 18:11, jim deleskie wrote:
> I struggled with this whole SDN/NVF/insert marketing term for a while at
> first, until I sat down and actually though about. When I strip away all
> the foo, what I'm left with is breaking things down to pieces and and
> putting logo blocks together in a way that best suits what I'm doing. It
> is really going back to the way things were a long time ago in the days of
> 12/2400 baud models and 56k frame relay. It doesn't help vendors vendors
> that want to sell you over priced foo for features you don't really need.
> It lets you, if you have clue build your own right bits. It will see some
> vendors evolve, new vendors of their brand of foo appear and some vendors
> die, but end of day, its no different then most of were doing back in the
> "good ol days"
The way I see it, the whole SDN/NFV talk has finally devolved into
automation (separating the control and data plane is sooooo 2013).
Automation is not new - a lot of networks have been automating for a
long time now, albeit in custom ways that only worked for them... ummh,
rephrase: was not tested in other networks.
The reason I see SDN/NFV becoming a thing is just to have a standard way
of automating. That's it.
Mark.
