Question

Difficulty: MediumCapabilities of Configuration Management Mechanisms (Puppet, Chef, Ansible)

A network engineer is implementing automated switch deployment across multiple enterprise branch locations. The organization's security policy strictly forbids installing persistent software agents on network devices and requires that configuration changes be pushed directly from a central management station over standard SSH sessions using YAML-based playbooks. Which configuration management tool satisfies all of these requirements?

  1. AnsibleAnswer
  2. B
    Puppet
  3. C
    Chef
  4. D
    SaltStack

Answer

Ansible satisfies all specified requirements because it operates using an agentless, push-based model that executes automation tasks over standard SSH using YAML-formatted playbooks.
Ansible utilizes an agentless architecture that communicates directly with target network nodes over SSH or NETCONF. It operates on a push-based model where configurations are executed immediately using human-readable YAML playbooks.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the operational constraints provided in the scenario
Identified four primary requirements: Agentless architecture (no endpoint software installation), push execution model, transport via SSH, and playbooks written in YAML format.
Comparing network constraints to standard automation framework characteristics determines tool compatibility.
2
Evaluate configuration management tools against the criteria
Ansible utilizes SSH for connection (agentless), pushes configuration updates from a control node, and formats playbooks in YAML. In contrast, Puppet and Chef rely on client agents executing periodic pull requests with Ruby-based DSLs or custom manifests.
Ansible is designed specifically to support agentless network infrastructure automation over native protocols.

Key Concept

Capabilities and architectural differences of Configuration Management mechanisms (Ansible vs Puppet vs Chef)
Rate this question