<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>SDN on rob.sh</title>
    <link>https://rob.sh/tags/sdn/</link>
    <description>Recent content in SDN on rob.sh</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2015 21:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://rob.sh/tags/sdn/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Working with YANG Models - A brief intro to &#39;pyangbind&#39;</title>
      <link>https://rob.sh/post/209/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2015 21:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rob.sh/post/209/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Both the Hawaii IETF meeting (IETF91) and the subsequent meeting we had a few weeks ago in Dallas were somewhat YANG-heavy. Following work to move towards YANG as a standard modelling language for network configuration, and the subsequent &lt;a href=&#34;https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34;&gt;IESG statement&lt;/a&gt; effectively deprecating SNMP as the way that we present network configuration - the IETF, and especially the routing area, has dived head-first into YANG.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Indeed, I&amp;rsquo;ve been occupied somewhat with some really great collaborative work with a number of awesome engineers from Google, Microsoft, AT&amp;amp;T, Level3, Yahoo!, Facebook, Cox, Verizon and others on the &lt;a href=&#34;http://www.openconfig.net&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34;&gt;OpenConfig&lt;/a&gt; initiative. We&amp;rsquo;re trying to take an operator and use-case driven approach to developing YANG modules for both configuration and defining the schema for telemetry. This work has turned up a few times in the press, and I should probably write something separate about it in the near future.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;However, one observation that a number of people have made, is that there&amp;rsquo;s really limited tooling available to work with YANG modules. We have (the rather excellent) &lt;a href=&#34;https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34;&gt;pyang&lt;/a&gt;, which provides a validation tool for YANG modules and the corresponding &lt;a href=&#34;https://github.com/tail-f-systems/JNC&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34;&gt;JNC&lt;/a&gt; plugin that creates Java classes &amp;ndash; but after that, options start to run pretty dry for what one might use, other than commercial products such as tail-f NCS. In some cases, the way that these modules work is also a bit esoteric, requiring quite a lot of care around what the YANG types are in the consuming code.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;To drive adoption of YANG and NETCONF for making the network more programmable &amp;ndash; we need to make it easy to program the network. To this end, I started some work, with the aim of:&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Almost Two Years On: Where is SDN?</title>
      <link>https://rob.sh/post/204/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 10 Aug 2013 06:47:17 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rob.sh/post/204/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Almost two years ago I wrote a post on this site entitled &lt;a href=&#34;https://rob.sh/post/201&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34;&gt;Some Initial Thoughts on the SDN&lt;/a&gt;. Clearly, since then the SDN concept gained some more legs (and entered a new stage of the hype cycle) - so, where are we right now?&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Firstly, I think its fair to say that the concept presented by Scott Shenker of having a single centralised computational element controlling COTS OpenFlow-speaking switches has fallen out of favour somewhat (based on the discussions with other network architects, engineers, and implementors that I have had). Somewhat as predicted, there are real challenges with this approach within high-scale, distributed networks:&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title> Some Initial Thoughts on the Software-Defined Network (SDN). </title>
      <link>https://rob.sh/post/201/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:42:35 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rob.sh/post/201/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p class=&#34;p2&#34;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#x9;At one of the Ericsson R&amp;amp;D days, Professor Scott Shenker - who&#39;s an academic at the University of California in Berkeley, presented on a concept that he calls the &#34;software defined network&#39;. Now, if you haven&#39;t seen the presentation - it&#39;s definitely worth watching (it&#39;s on&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href=&#34;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVs7Pc99S7w&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34;&gt;YouTube, here&lt;/a&gt;), and provides quite an engaging look at the problem of network scaling from the perspective of academia, and especially in terms of a comparison to the more rigorous disciplines of computer science, like OS design.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
