RE: 32-bit and 64-bit counters (fwd)

["David B Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>]

[sarcasm on]
Then maybe we should change the mib-review-guidleines to insist that
all ietf mibs be written in smiv1 and all communications to be using
snmpv1, to standardize best current practices, based on this survey. 

Maybe we should close ISMS and other SNMPv3-related WGs, and start to
deal with the reality that operators prefer SNMPv1 to SNMPv2c and
SNMPv3, and change all mib-related ietf charters to have them do their
work in smiv1, so we can focus on developing only solutions that work
with snmpv1 and smiv1. We've given the operator community ten years to
migrate to SMIv2, and six plus years to migrate to SNMPv2c and SNMPv3.
Apparently they are not interested in migrating to the designs that
were meant to resolve the problems they had complained about. 

Maybe we should declare SMIv2 and SNMPv2c and SNMPv3 historic, and
encourage the use of SMIv1 and SNMPv1.
[sarcasn off]

If people want to use interfaces/mib modules that require 64-bit
counters, they should migrate to SMIv2-capable products. Let's NOT
design snmpv1 and smiv1 solutions when there are standards already
published for providing this functionality.

dbh

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]
On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 3:44 PM
To: Mreview (E-mail)
Subject: RE: 32-bit and 64-bit counters (fwd)

The one survey that I saw on this subject (which was admittedly a long
time ago) said that the level of deployment of SNMPv2c was much less
than that of SNMPv1.  So it's not necessarily pointless.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, David B Harrington wrote:
> I concur. 
> 
> dbh
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 7:17 AM
> To: David T. Perkins
> Cc: C. M. Heard; Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: 32-bit and 64-bit counters (fwd)
> 
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:44:42PM -0700, David T. Perkins wrote:
>  
> > It's find with me as long as it will be possible for me to update 
> > and submit the old I-D I did on adding support for
> > Counter64 in SNMPv1 as an informational RFC.
> 
> I believe Counter64 is SNMPv1 is pointless since we have SNMPv2c.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725
Bremen,
> Germany