On 21/Jul/20 16:59, Mel Beckman wrote:

But SDN is NOT just ""SDN = some kind of automation””. Its centralized management with good automation built-in. Good automation means automation that orchestrates cohesive, correct network changes — and can roll them back — not just scripts that can spew configs into individual devices.

So operators who've been doing this for decades are, what? Pre-SDN :-).

And you say SDN consists of "bits of code and ideas coming out of these operators” as if that’s a bad thing. That’s how all innovation happens in IT.

I didn't say it was a bad thing; I said the gap to standardization will remain wide if we are not feeding off the full story.

Today's SDN has delivered on orchestration and good automation.You only have to shop and compare, the products are there and very powerful.

Oh, don't get me wrong - we've seen all the products. Evaluated a bunch. Not enough for me to write a cheque though; many of the vendors can't make their own minds up. But meh, YMMV.

But more germane to this discussion, I would expect any network engineer candidate to know all about SDN, know how various vendors implement it, and have experience using it.

You wouldn’t expect a bridge engineer to not be proficient in advanced computational modeling, would you? Or an electrical engineer to not understand field-programmable gate arrays? Or a chemical engineer ignorant of SCADA programmable logic controllers?

That’s the equivalent of an SDN-ignorant engineer in today’s market.

Well then show me the door to where the SDN-ignorants are gathering. I'll go join them for a laugh :-).

Seriously though, I'm not dismissing "SDN". I'm just saying we may not all agree on what it means for us. So let's spend more time on what we can agree on; how folk get there (SDN, or whatever name we dream up this decade) is up to them.

If we still struggle to implement a basic, but standard BCP-38/MANRS on a global scale, I think we may be shooting for the stars to standardize that other thing.

Mark.