Network device command line interfaces

Fri Nov 25 03:12:06 UTC 2011

I may have a different opinion here, but I not sure I'd call any CLI easy
to work with.  Cisco's training machine is so efficient that some learn IOS
before leaving high school, so the fact that we all consider IOS easy to
work with is relative.  Just look at the "router" command.  Most of us know
that this is cisco's way of enabling protocols, but I would hardly call
this intuitive if I didn't know it already.  Then it's different for each
protocol. So "router BGP #" starts the BGP process and sets your local AS
number (very important). "router eigrp #" starts eigrp and sets a different
AS number that doesn't really count (also important). "router ospf #" just
sets a process ID in case you want to run multiple instances.  There's also
a config mode autonomous-system command but that only counts if your
running EGP which is still in the CLI but isn't supported and doesn't
start.  Then there's all the different things you can/must do with
access-lists because they were too lazy to code a different sort of
filter.  Remember CBAC?  Did I mention this is the CLI we like?  I don't
mind wrestling with a new CLI because it's all relative.  Most have read at
least one cisco book and probably one juniper book so those CLI's are
considered standard and all their sins are forgiven.  Most of us have not
gone through, training with extreme, enterasys, 3COM, netgear, foundry,
fortigate, etc. etc. etc.  So those become the PITA CLI's and suddenly
non-standard commands and bad help menus become a crime again.  I do find
text-based menus obnoxious, unless it's a linux box and the text menu is a
curses interface.  In that case it's super-cool and I'm even willing to
play games with text based menus.

2011/11/23 Jonathon Exley <Jonathon.Exley at kordia.co.nz>

> Does anyone else despair at the CLIs produced by networking vendors?
> Real routers use a CLI that is command based, like IOS, TiMOS or Junos.
> These interfaces work well over low bandwidth connections (unlike web
> interfaces), can work with config backup systems like RANCID, have a
> (mostly) consistent structure and good show commands.
> However vendors of low cost routers/switches/muxes seem to take a stab in
> the dark and produce some really nasty stuff. I have a personal hate of
> text based menus and binary config backup files.
> Doe this p*** off anyone else? The business part of the company says "This
> device is great! It's cheap and does everything." However the poor sap who
> is given the task to make it work has to wrestle with a badly designed user
> interface and illogical syntax.
> Maybe the vendors need some sort of best practices guide for what
> manageability features their kit needs to support to make them acceptable
> to the market. Does anyone know if there is anything along these lines?
>
>
> Jonathon.
>
>
> This email and attachments: are confidential; may be protected by
> privilege and copyright; if received in error may not be used, copied, or
> kept; are not guaranteed to be virus-free; may not express the views of
> Kordia(R); do not designate an information system; and do not give rise to
> any liability for Kordia(R).
>
>