[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: SNMP improvements
Inline and comments at the bottom
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 04:03:16PM -0600, Eduardo Cardona wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there any work or paper to fuel SNMP to a more efficient
> > pooling of
> > > big tables (hundreds of rows) , like a new PDU type
> > 'GetBulkTableRows' ?
> > > Should we wait for SMIv3, or an overall substitute of SNMP?
> > The SNMP community had two working groups (SMIng and EOS) to fix some
> > of the known problems and to evolve the SNMP technology. Both working
> > groups failed to deliver and got shut down. So I think it is very
> > unlikely that work on SNMP happens within the IETF in the near future,
> > except some maintenance stuff.
> I agree with this analysis.
> > In other words, if people are serious to continue an evolutionary path,
> > they have to get their act together outside of the IETF. The other
> > alternative is to try a revolutionary approach (and I guess this is
> > why you see so many SNMP folks in the netconf WG.)
> The reason SMING and EOS were shut down is lack of volunteer effort -
> nobody was willing to do the work.
One other IMPORTANT factor was:
Any work that had actually been done, documented and discussed
did NOT reach any WG consensus as to where to go.
I.e. it is two things that are required:
- volunteers to do the work (editing, leading the WG, reviews,
possible implementation and experimentation work).
- a willingness in the community to come to consensus on an
approach and technical solution.
I think both were missing (certainly at the end).
> If you are willing to commit to doing the work, then you can probably
> get this handled as an IETF activity.
> But you will need to demonstrate a real commitment to doing the work,
> such as by writing a fleshed-out proposal, bringing it to the attention
> of the area directors, agreeing to yield change control to the IETF, and
> agreeing to edit the document further. You may also be asked to lead a
> BOF to get a WG started to do the work.
> The political environment in the IETF NM area has been pretty
> discouraging to people interested in SNMP. It has largely come down to
> if you are interested in SNMP your opinions are not welcome.
> That is one reason why you see so many SNMP people in the netconf WG.
As AD for the IETF NM and SNMP related work, I must take issue with the
above statement. It is NOT the "political environment in the IETF NM area".
It is rather that the players seems unable to put enough energy into it
and lack the willingness to come to consensus on the technical solutions.
Add to that the message we have received from the operator community:
That SNMP and the MIB modules are NOT used for configuring most network
devices and that it does not meet their needs.
So I am taking issues with the idea that this is a "political" issue!!!
AD Operations and Management Area.
> David Harrington
> co-chair, IETF SNMPv3 WG (now concluded)
> > /js
> > --
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder International
> University Bremen
> > <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561,
> > 28725 Bremen, Germany