Randy Bush writes:
[in response to John Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:]
>> I've personally been waiting for the data modeling to be
>> standardized. Yes, it's great and wonderful to have a consistent
>> method of talking to network devices, but I also want a standard
>> data model along with it.
> d
> I've personally been waiting for the data modeling to be
> standardized. Yes, it's great and wonderful to have a consistent
> method of talking to network devices, but I also want a standard data
> model along with it.
does this not imply that all devices would need to be semantically
con
On May 15, 2008, at 10:28 PM, 袁智辉 wrote:
>
> How is the state of arts of NETCONF (RFC 4741) protocol?
>
> Is there any Network Management System Deployed which is base on
> NETCONF?
I've personally been waiting for the data modeling to be
standardized. Yes, it's great and wonderful to have
How is the state of arts of NETCONF (RFC 4741) protocol?
Is there any Network Management System Deployed which is base on NETCONF?
Do you think security products (like Firewall, IDS/IPS and Security
Operation Centre) can benefit from NETCONF?
Thanks in advance,
Devin
___
4 matches
Mail list logo
