Um, what ever did happen with network automation?

In thinking about the decade-plus worth of efforts to automate the configuration and operation of networks – of which intent-based networking may be the most well-known and ambitious example – are we actually any closer to the automation of networking that we were a decade ago? I remember the moment when software-defined …

[Anonymous Coward]

Its to complicated...

For Cloud environments, automation is fairly easy, as their depth and complexity is limited... For on-premise LANs and physical hardware, it gets to complicated, as there are multiple layers of firewalls, segmenting different areas of a network.. o get traffic from A to G, the automation effectively needs a GPS, to figure out B, C, D, E and F...

The company I work for pays an eye-watering amount of money for network auto-mation tools, and they enable to automate a small percentage of basic network changes, and even then, they have to be triple checked by an Net Engineering before they can be applied - its not worth the cost, but the company keeps coughing up, just so they can "we do network automation".

[Pascal Monett]

Re: Its to complicated...

Not to mention when you want to introduce intrusion surveillance and zero trust on top of all that mess.

I'm not a network wizard, but I am a programmer and telling me that all I need to do is configure something with an intent smacks to me of AI before its time and no real solution.

Security is not a click away. We might get there one day, but no "intent" configuration is going to do that.

[KHobbits]

Path to the edge

I was heavily involved in an data center Apstra deployment. Not a huge deployment, but we decided on a spine and leaf style deployment, that covers everything 10G+, but not the 1G TOR switches.

That means for most servers I can provision the networking from the Apstra GUI/CLI/API, but not the idrac/ilom/ipmi.

The value for the non virtualized part of the data center, is mixed. I spend more time in the Apstra interface tweaking the config for a single bare metal server than I would sshing into a switch and tagging the vlans. However if I'm deploying multiple racks of the same kit, the configuration templates save a little time.

I did find using the stock GUI and CLI, not really good enough for bulk provision, and ended up spending a few days writing a custom cli to allow me to script adding machines that we we're migrating to the platform.

[ecofeco]

Re: Path to the edge

Jargon bingo for the win!

And perfectly illustrates the problem.

[Joseba4242]

Re: Path to the edge

The value of automation isn't just about saving time for initial provisioning.

It's also to ensure consistency so that you don't experience a surprise issue when the primary switch fails and the backup is configured slightly differently. Or self-protection ACLs are accidentally missed out.

It also enables more frequent change. For example SNMP communities. Or changes in the template regarding security features.

[ecofeco]

Automation requires uniformity

Automation requires uniformity, stability and standards.

Something the I.T. industry roundly rejects at every opportunity in the name of innovation and disruption. Along with quality control.

Not to mention, it's hard to automate vaporware and rug pulls*.

*unannounced unilateral changes always to the detriment of the end users.

[Yes Me]

Re: Automation requires uniformity

I don't think it's the whole industry that resists uniformity, stability and standards. Of course, marketroids are besotted with the idea of selling new stuff to replace old stuff that's still working, like "migrating" to "Web 3" (whatever those words mean), but netops people generally think that uniformity is great, stability lets them sleep at night, and standards are essential for when they are finally forced to replace old kit.

But automated networks? Um, you mean, I don't any longer need to be able to configure obscure parameters on well-hidden switches because I'm the only person here who can do that? Some automation software is going to do my job for me? Nah, I'll stick to CLI config and even better, to obscure scripts written in ancient languages that nobody but me understands.

There are RFCs for autonomic networks. Please find me a vendor who supports them or a netops person who wants them.

[ecofeco]

Re: Automation requires uniformity

I've been in the biz for decades.

It IS the whole industry.

[ChoHag]

> Um, what ever did happen with network automation?

Devopsers have already passed (with flying colours, mostly brown) their level of incompetence and they're still trying to shoe-horn in security. Networking has little tolerance for failure and they simply can't cope.

[n3tn3rd]

The Twelve Networking Truths ALWAY Apply

Have to admit I had to do a double take on the article and comments.

Even the phrasing is practically identical.

For those that know, you know, but for everyone else - If you only ever read one RFC, make it RFC1925.

Not going to post a direct link, but RFC-editor and the IEFT will be top hits. Worth looking at.