ASR9K xml agent vs netconf

Corey Touchet corey.touchet at
Tue Aug 5 13:42:18 UTC 2014

I always preferred the displays where you have commands without all the
bracket garbage and just indented text for sub items.

On the MX the show configuration | display set is about as close as you
can get, but it¹s workable.  Kudo¹s is that you can just dump it in as
well and get what you want.  I think the only time I really get annoyed at
the JunOS configurations is when I¹m staring down any of their switches.

On 8/5/14, 7:32 AM, "Dale W. Carder" <dwcarder at> wrote:

>Thus spake Jeremy (jbaino at on Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 03:07:19PM
>> I'm currently working on writing some automation around the ASR9K
>> and I've been looking at both the netconf and xml interfaces. Anyone
>> experience with either?
>> It looks like the XML interface is much more feature rich, supporting
>> config and operational state objects where netconf is limited to config
>> only.
>> Currently I'm leaning towards the xml interface,
>I wasted a week of my life trying to get xml interface on n9k to work
>correctly.  I would never use it again, as it obviously gets no QA.
>There is likely a fundamental design flaw in that the cli is not itself
>an xml client like you see on other platforms.  The XML interface, and
>CLI (presumably netconf) may all be distinct clients to sysdb.  I did
>get (3) ddts' assigned, related to missing data compared to cli, endian
>issues, etc.  My recommendation is DO NOT USE IT.
>I went back to screen scraping for ios-xr.  Related to this and other
>issues, all of our subsequent purchases have been MX.

More information about the NANOG mailing list