One of the selling points of Cisco’s Nexus 1000V virtual switch is that it provides network administrators with a familiar way of configuration, namely the CLI. The Nexus 1000V is built on NX-OS and is accessible via SSH. This was intended to give network engineers the familiar look and feel to perform their duties that they didn’t have with the hypervisor’s native vSwitch.
I understand the need for separation of duty and that is what any dedicated management interface of switch provides. And I appreciate that the Nexus 1000V offers many rich features that most soft switches don’t, such as L2/L3 ACLs, link aggregation, port monitoring, and some of the more advanced STP knobs like BPDU Guard. What I don’t appreciate is clinging on to an archaic mode of configuration.
When I took my CCIE lab, Cisco provided a single reference CD-ROM, known as UniverCD or DocCD. Many tasks required knowledge of esoteric commands. One of the first steps any competent test-taker would take would be to use the alias command to define short cuts. For example, show ip route might become sir. Network engineers often take great pride in the aliases they define and the Expect/Perl/Python scripts they’ve written to automate tasks. They rave about the amount of time saved. Of course all of this would break when new CLI commands were created by the vendor that conflicted with existing aliases.
In one of my past roles I was one of five engineers who used to frequently make firewall rule changes to ASAs. All of us were CCIEs, but none of us used the CLI to make the changes. Instead we preferred to use ASDM, the GUI element manager. Sure it was buggy and handled concurrent changes poorly, but at least the changes made were accurate. Adding a single rule isn’t as simple as adding a single line. In most cases you have to edit object groups and make sure there are no overlapping or conflicting rules. Trusting a human to do this accurately every time is like trusting someone to have a 5-hour daily drive for work and never get into an accident.
There is a smarter way to do configuration management. Make the network programmable. Offer APIs to developers that are stateful and intelligent. Obviously, the rebuttal from Nexus 1000V loyalists is that engineers are familiar with NX-OS and would therefore be more comfortable with the CLI. But that’s a step in the wrong direction. When I look back at how much time gets wasted by network engineers in creating simple automation tasks such as macros, I realize this is one of the reasons networking has lagged behind compute technologies. Network engineers should not have to write their own scripts to make their own lives easier. Applications should be doing this for them. Let the network engineers focus on their job, which is optimizing how packets need to get sent from source to destination – as quickly, reliably, and securely as possible.
2 thoughts on “Death to the CLI”
I wouldn’t want to configure 48 ports on a switch using a GUI. I wouldn’t want to write a change script that described what I’d be doing in a GUI. SDN could indeed solve these issues but who in the ITIL/change/service management team is going to be happy with that layer of abstraction? It’s not just the network team that needs to adapt!