Re: Unimus Network Automation https://unimus.net/

[Jeremy Austin]

To be precise, Unimus allows some mass config push but is not a templating
system. It's superb for config pull. It's decent for simple, static config
pushes or on-the-box scripting pushes.

Tomas has mentioned publicly that he has built templated config systems in
the past, but I don't believe that work has been turned into a shipping
product yet.

I'm a happy paid user and have also met Tomas in person. I'm no expert, but
he and his team write what appears (by performance) to be beautiful java.

Jeremy Austin


On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:39 PM James Braunegg 
wrote:

> Dear All
>
>
>
> Anyone using Unimus for Network Automation ? https://unimus.net/
>
>
>
> i.e. mass configuration / push / pull configurations looking for something
> more powerful than rconfig for a Cisco Nexus and Juniper environment.
>
>
>
> And or happy with any other suggestions
>
>
>
> Kindest Regards
>
>
>
> *James Braunegg*
>
> [image: cid:image001.png@01D280A4.01865B60]
>
> 1300 769 972 / 0488 997 207 <1300%20769%20972>
>
> *ja...@micron21.com *
>
> www.micron21.com/
>
> [image: cid:image002.png@01D280A4.01865B60] 
>
> [image: cid:image003.png@01D280A4.01865B60]
> 
>
> [image: cid:image004.png@01D280A4.01865B60] 
>
> Follow us on Twitter  for important service
> and system updates.
>
> This message is intended for the addressee named above. It may contain
> privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this message you must not use, copy, distribute or disclose it
> to anyone other than the addressee. If you have received this message in
> error please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then
> delete the message from your computer.
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Jeremy Austin
jhaus...@gmail.com

Re: Follow up to "has virtualization become obsolete in 5G"?

[Nick Hilliard]

Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote on 16/01/2021 11:34:
The term NFV is a bit of a stretch for what is really 
network-function-containerization.


Like ~ everything else relating to computers, network management and 
service provisioning functionality boils down to executing CPU 
instructions on physical devices with service access handles and 
protocols available over a management communications layer. There are 
plenty of choice about what particular abstraction layer you might want 
to sit between between the storage image and the CPU.  Containers have 
been around for years, and have some advantages over hypervisor-based 
virtual machines, in relation to cost and deployment efficiency.  Like 
everything else, there's a tradeoff, and the suitability of containers 
to the function at hand depends on what you're trying to achieve.


The reaction of most technical people to deployment of NFV or 
declaration of NFV's death is going to be more along the lines of 
wondering why telco proponents were so late to the devops / 
containerisation game to start with, and what on earth did they think 
was so innovative about it that it deserved yet another marketing label.


Nick

advertise-peer-as

[Jared Mauch]

I’m curious how many networks have this as part of their default configuration?

If you’re bored on a weekend please click through to this and say yes/no.  I’ll 
summarize in a week or so.  If I configured the form right, it should also show 
you the results as well.

https://forms.gle/xxLnA7KgQL48VMNe8

- Jared

Re: Follow up to "has virtualization become obsolete in 5G"?

[Etienne-Victor Depasquale]

>
> I'm also unsure where it mentions that virtualization is now obsolete.
>
"Obsolete" was my term.
The substance of my question last year was my surprise in observing
what appeared to be a trend that virtualization technologies (KVM, Xen,
Hyper-V ...)
are no longer the first choice for implementation of network functions.

Since then, every opportunity I've had to listen to operators, operators'
groups, vendors and analysts
has reaffirmed the preference of containerization technologies for
implementation of network functions (NFs).

What struck me in particular in the link I've shared is the extract I
quoted:
"Once the darling of the telecoms industry, NFV has had a rough ride in
recent years and has even lead some industry observers to proclaim that NFV
is dead."

NFV solutions are moving to VM based deployments as a stop-gap and for the
> future, towards micro-services built in containers.

Agreed ... except that some "industry observers" may link NFV exclusively
to virtualization technologies. I don't.
However, in their favour, I'd dare say that it's not technically sound to
blur the technical differences
between NFs implemented in VMs and NFs implemented in containers.
The term NFV is a bit of a stretch for what is really
network-function-containerization.

Cheers,

Etienne

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:57 AM Laurent Dumont 
wrote:

> The amount of buzzwords in that page is quite incredible.
>
> I'm also unsure where it mentions that virtualization is now obsolete. NFV
> solutions are moving to VM based deployments as a stop-gap and for the
> future, towards micro-services built in containers.
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 6:38 AM Etienne-Victor Depasquale 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> Last year, I posted to this list and asked "has virtualization become
>> obsolete in 5G"?
>>
>> A similar opinion seems to be gaining ground
>> 
>> .:
>>
>> "Once the darling of the telecoms industry, NFV has had a rough ride in
>> recent years and has even lead some industry observers to proclaim that NFV
>> is dead."
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Etienne
>>
>> --
>> Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
>> Assistant Lecturer
>> Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
>> Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
>> University of Malta
>> Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
>>
>

-- 
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

Re: opportunistic email encryption by the MTA (not MUA)

[Rich Kulawiec]

While I agree pretty much entirely with everything you've expressed,
there is another force in the world quietly chugging away to make
sure that email privacy remains largely hypothetical...and that is:
cloud computing.

A lot of people have outsourced their mail service to cloud operations,
so even if the mail servers on both ends do everything "right", which
(to your point) might include a refusal to transmit messages unless an
over-the-wire encryption method is agreed on, messages thus sent are
available in plaintext on both sides of the transmission and thus can
be inspected/collected/etc. at will by the operators of the cloud [1].
Or by anyone who's penetrated the cloud.

Note that while use of PGP/similar to encrypt the message itself helps
with this, that doesn't stop traffic analysis on either side of the
transmission.

---rsk

[1] Which includes the people working there and working for them,
as well as the people working there and not working for them.