TCP/IP software


tcp-ip-RELAY%SRI-NIC.ARPA (@um.cc.umich.edu,@SFU:@UM.CC.UMICH.EDU:tcp-ip-RELAY@SRI-NIC.ARPA)
Tue, 24 Nov 87 19:11:18 PST


, hedrick@ARAMIS.RUTGERS.EDU, trewitt@Miasma.Stanford.EDU, tcp-ip@SRI-NIC.ARPA, , netman@Amadeus.Stanford.EDUgwmon:
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 87 19:11:18 PST
To: userID=To: userID=DUM1@SFU.MAILNET, hedrick@ARAMIS.RUTGERS.EDU, trewitt@MIASMA.STANFORD.EDU, tcp-ip@SRI-NIC.ARPA, , netman@AM
Subject: Re: Network Management

Charles, Thank you for clearly stating your views. I agree that any
path is going to take a lot of work. It would be best if we all
could get on with the "work" to be done. The characterization of
the vendors who are favoring the CMIS approach is best described as
"end system vendors" as opposed to "gateway vendors". They see their
customers as drowning in network "administration" details in addition
to netowrk "management" details. A few years back you (and I) were
running timesharing systems and we did that with a ton of software
and human procedures that were tightly integrated (evefn if by dint
of hard work and numerous kludges that remained invisible to our
customers). The joy of networking has stripped managers of that tight
integration of administrative tools. Dealing with routing protocol
misbehaviour is only the tip of the iceberg (even if that tip will
still sink the largest ship someday). So, end users need to have their
entire "computing facilities" managed. I think that is what this group of
vendors is wrestling with.

I hope all parties can find a way to combine efforts for the benefit of
all users. After all, satisfied users are the lifeblood of us all.

Dan
-------



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:39:57 GMT