Rethinking Network Monitoring#

Christian Adell & David Flores · CoreWeave

• Why: The clearest architectural statement at the conference that monitoring is the feedback signal for automation, not a dashboard problem — from a GPU-cloud operator running hyperscale DC fabrics.
• What: The argument is that the gap isn't tooling but architecture: observability is a pipeline (collector → processor → distribution → persistence → visualization) that must be diverse (metrics, logs, flows, state, config), integrable (tied to the SoT and the orchestrator so the loop closes), and scalable (federated, cardinality-aware). The stated goal: a device added to the SoT starts being monitored automatically; a 3am interface degradation is verified and remediated by a workflow, no human.
• How: Normalize multi-vendor telemetry (gNMI vs SNMP schemas) into a common shape; enrich with SoT context (role, location, owner, maintenance status) — but only with labels that drive decisions, since every label multiplies time series. SoT decides what gets monitored (push/webhook over periodic sync); "an alert is a contract, not a notification" — alerts must be machine-consumable by the orchestrator.
• Where applicable: The pipeline pattern is vendor-agnostic and transfers to any fleet. The "hundreds of thousands of devices" framing is CoreWeave-scale; smaller operators can adopt the architecture without the federation complexity.