What is intent-based networking, and how is it different from plain automation?
Show the answer
Say this first
In intent-based networking you state the outcome you want ("contractors can reach only the internet"), and the system translates it into device config, pushes it, and then keeps checking with telemetry that the outcome is still true. Plain automation runs the steps you wrote. IBN adds the translation from business terms and the closed loop of continuous assurance.
Go deeper
The loop
- Translation. Business or service intent becomes a network policy and then device config.
- Activation. The controller pushes config to every device involved.
- Assurance. Telemetry and tests confirm the network behaves as intended, all the time.
- Remediation. When reality drifts from intent, the system alerts or corrects.
Products that use the term
- Cisco Catalyst Center with SD-Access: group-based policies between user and device groups, assurance on top.
- Juniper Apstra: intent for data center fabrics, with continuous validation of the built fabric against the blueprint.
- Cisco ACI: the policy model (EPGs and contracts) is a form of declared intent.
Honest view
The term is marketing-heavy. The useful part is real: declare the desired state, generate config from it, and verify continuously instead of trusting that a push worked.
They will ask next
How would you explain intent to a non-technical manager?
Today we tell every switch exactly what to do. With intent we tell the system what we want, such as "guests only reach the internet", and it works out the switch settings and keeps checking that it stays true.
Traps
- Describing IBN as "a GUI that pushes templates". Without assurance there is no closed loop and no intent check.