[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SNMP improvements



At 07:10 AM 9/18/2003, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 22:10:34 -0700, Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com> said:
>
>Andy> Also, I don't understand why "fixing" SNMP is so important
>Andy> anyway.  The industry has decided SNMP is good for monitoring
>Andy> and notifications, and it does a great job in both cases.
>
>I agree that its good for monitoring and notifications, but I disagree
>it does a great job in both cases.  It still suffers problems, like
>bulking as Dinakaran pointed out.  It also suffers from lack of
>current data types, a lack of security that matches current security
>deployment sceneries, ...  It *has* been good and continues to be good
>for many situations.  It does, however, suffer from all the problems
>that started EOS and SMIng in the first place.  Some of those
>problems, like dealing with hierarchal configuration, can be thrown
>out since netconf might take care of them (note I only say might
>because it still needs to be proven in an interoperable fashion
>[juniper has proven it can work in a non-interoperable way which is a
>huge start]).  I still believe we need to fix SNMP in a few cases, and
>I agree that the number of cases has hopefully been reduced.  If,
>however, we expect it to be used in the future along with netconf, as
>you suggest, then it could use some minor revamps.

If it's so obvious that SNMP needs these improvements, 
then why didn't they get done in the EOS WG?  Why should
anyone think an EOS-2 or an SNMPv4 WG will have any more
success than EOS?

Andy