That's an interesting question! Let's explore the difference first and then discuss the need for both that we're seeing nowadays. Intent-based automation uses a declarative approach to network automation and it is comparable to a satellite navigation system. In order to go from A to B, you only need to enter the destination and the satnav works out the best way to get there. You do not need to manually program each turn. If there is a roadblock or a traffic jam, the engine works out the best alternative route without you having to manually reprogram the route.
The orchestration component of IBM Cloud Pak for Network Automation works in a similar way. By wrapping xNFs in a standardised lifecycle model and designing the service by describing the relationships between the xNFs the intent engine is able to auto-generate the most efficient set of steps for the service lifecycle and keep the service in the optimal state. Much like the satnav, IBM Cloud Pak for Network Automation will auto-resolve the current state of a service with the desired target state and create an execution plan to bring the service to the desired state with no manual definition of the workflows.
On the other hand, work-flow automation uses an imperative approach whereby a step-by-step approach is taken to get to the desired result.
In our case, in acting as a reseller for Pliant network automation to complement the CP4NA, a low-code workflow platform is provided for network process automation. This approach is useful when you want to create workflow automations for the underlining infrastructure/network, process heavy operations or to reduce swivel chair tasks.
In essence, we're seeing a need for both. For example, operations teams like to follow processes and workflows to visualize automation while design teams like to focus on outcomes and prefer intent-based solutions with transparent automation
------------------------------
PASCAL MAHER Product Manager, Software Defined Networking
------------------------------