There's an unfortunate tendency for the industry, as a whole, to
demand Cisco CLI compatibility when it doesn't even make sense: what
does compatibility to show cache mean when the platform doesn't use a
cache?
I hate menu-based interfaces, especially "GUI's" that are text menu
interfaces masquerading as graphic models. I freely admit Site
Mangler is a not-wonderful example here. Interfaces that have an
underlying object model can be either textual or graphic.
There are places for both, and there is need for research in many
aspects. One thing that the human factors people are discovering is
there are several distinct requirements for user interfaces.
High-level interfaces for service provisioning (i.e., across multiple
devices) make a good deal of sense. The ITU TMN and IETF POLICY
initiatives have this notion of service definition as distinct from
individual element (e.g., router) management.
Another need is for network policy interfaces, which will be expert
friendly rather than "user" friendly. These will add productivity
for thoroughly clueful people doing such things as BGP peering,
directory-based networking, etc.
Classical CLI's are useful in element provisioning and
troubleshooting. If they are fairly line-at-a-time oriented, such as
IOS, they may be harder to script than more structured languages such
as JunOS or the GateD configuration language. The Bay Technician
Interface is really more of a scripting language than a direct user
interface, but it does have the advantage of operating on the
underlying object model in the MIBs.
With the caveat that my orientation is to carriers, there is a
significant qualitative difference in the kind of interfaces (plural)
needed to manage thousands of enterprise connections and a relatively
few desktops.
>"Bradley J. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>Keep in mind that Nortel actually has *two* CLIs on their routers: the TI
>(the traditional CLI) and now the BCC (Bay Command Console, or Blatant Cisco
>Copy if you prefer, although it's quite a misnomer). The BCC was developed
>for two reasons: one, to make Cisco people more comfy with Bay routers; and
>two, because their GUI, Site Manager (or Site Mangler, which is *not* a
>misnomer) stinks. As far as I'm concerned, the BCC is a few steps ahead of
>Cisco's CLI. It's much more user-friendly, and offers a more logical view
>of the elements of the router's configuration. It's only available with
>BayRS 12.00 and above, but if you're ever in a Bay environment, check it out
>(type "bcc" at the TI prompt).
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 1:11 PM
>Subject: Re: Or Nortel? Re: Easy ML? Re:MCSE OR CCNA
>
><snip>
>
>in defense of the TI interface, although many cisco counterparts yield
>better information, anyone not afraid of unixesque scripting may write &
>implement their own commands on the RS platform. additionally, bay CLI
>access provides snmp get & set commands.
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
