Re: SNMP improvements

[chintan sheth <shethch@yahoo.com>]

So are we going on the path where netconf protocol is
expected to replace SNMP completely? For SNMP lovers
this won't be good news.

thx,
chintan

--- Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> 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.
> 
> -- 
> "In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to
> hold than the soap,
>  and much more difficult to find."  -- Terry
> Pratchett
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com