Re: SNMP improvements

[chintan sheth <shethch@yahoo.com>]

To my knowledge, I agree that implementation of
SNMPv2/v3 is very limited in industry  - particularly
SNMPv3, although IMHO i believe it is mainly due to
less knowledge of what advantages (alongwith some
shortcomings:)) SNMPv2/v3 can offer. I believe many
NMS/EMS applications already have SNMPv2 in place and
some of them are on the path of implementing SNMPv3. I
believe conventions like Networld+Interop et. al. & of
course SNMP WG should help pushing SNMPv2/v3 in
NMS/EMS applicatons.

My $.02

thx,
chintan

--- Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> For me the biggest drag on SMIng and EOS is/was
> SNMPv2/3.
> 
> Like, I just don't see them. Loads of SNMPv1, for
> monitoring and
> alerts as you say, but no use of v2/3 in the
> enterprises I work in.  I
> go to the major UK networking trade fair and zilch,
> the salesmen of
> the leading brands of network management tools have
> not even heard of
> differing versions; I leave questions with them,
> they promise to get
> back to me and zilch.  (By contrast, a few years
> ago, that networking
> fair was dominated by RMON - every product from hub
> to server seemed
> keen to claim implementation and conformance, the
> salesmen even knew
> the RFC number).
> 
> So I see this massive roadblock called v2/3.  There
> were obvious needs
> to be met in 1993, for bulk data and security, and
> in 2003, they are
> not yet met, either in theory as in RFC or in
> practice as in products.
> The solutions in v3 would have been good in 1993 but
> are inadequate
> for 2003; the needs have moved on, eg to sparse
> retrieval of tables.
> In 2003 SNMPv3 is (yet again) available as final(?)
> RFCs and I see
> that as the start of a year or two or three while
> the industry does or
> does not decide to implement it.  And only after
> that period can we
> realistically do anything about the problems of
> 2003, problems  which
> SMIng and EOS might have addressed.
> 
> Yup, I am pessimistic (and while netconf may have a
> better 'SMI' and
> protocol, yet I think its requirements are seriously
> flawed as in eg
> the current discussion of multiple configurations)
> 
> Tom Petch
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
> To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
> Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) <bwijnen@lucent.com>;
> 'Harrington, David'
> <dbh@enterasys.com>; Eduardo Cardona
> <e.cardona@CableLabs.com>;
> mibs@ops.ietf.org <mibs@ops.ietf.org>
> Date: 18 September 2003 15:09
> Subject: Re: SNMP improvements
> 
> 
> >>>>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:11:59 +0200, Juergen
> Schoenwaelder
> <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de> said:
> >
> >Juergen> I disagree, however, that the ADs are a
> cause for all this -
> >Juergen> the problem is that the NM people did
> after many years still
> >Juergen> have not deliver a technology which
> addresses the
> >Juergen> requirements of the operators. Rather than
> pointing to the
> >Juergen> ADs, we should point to ourselves.
> >
> >Sorry if I mislead you (and rereading what I wrote
> it does look like
> I
> >targeted them).  I think most people failed, from
> vendors to users to
> >ADs to me.  We need a roadmap agreed upon by
> everyone during this
> >transition time and we don't have one.  I've even
> offered to get one
> >started, and suggested a group it should go forward
> through but found
> >no interest from people even in that.
> >
> >So, I kept typing but deleted a few sentences that
> just sounded too
> >depressing.  Let's turn it around instead.  What
> *can* we do to turn
> >the situation around.  That would be better
> (constructive) use of our
> >time.  Hopefully netconf will help the
> configuration side, but we're
> >still left with many problems that netconf won't
> solve as it's out of
> >scope.  Anyone have thoughts on what needs to be
> done and how to get
> >there?  (I'll offer some starting suggestions if no
> one else does).
> >
> >--
> >"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