RE: SNMP over Ethernet

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

In line. 

 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 3:59 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: SNMP over Ethernet
> 
> Inline
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]On
> > Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 02:34
> > To: Mreview (E-mail)
> > Subject: SNMP over Ethernet
> > 
> > 
> > Please help me with a homework. The IEEE 802.1 WG is discussing the 
> > option on of using SNMP over Ethernet (don't ask). I see that this 
> > mapping originally defined by RFC 1089 was not included 
> later in the 
> > list run by RFC 3417? Does anything prevent doing RFC 1089 
> > encapsulation for SNMPv3?
> > 
> 
> I donot immediately see why SNMPv3 packets could not be sent 
> with an RFC1089 encapsulation. (not that the status of RFC1089 is
> UNKNOWN by the way).

I saw this - what does it mean, BTW? Was those never put on standards
track, was it informational, or because it was during pre-history these
categories were not used then?

> 
> Note that RFC1449 also did not include 1089 encapsulation
> (as far as I can tell from a quickj scan). So it seems it already
> was not too important anymore around early 90s.

Paradoxally it may become now again. The main good reason is that the
802.1 folks are looking for a OAM-like protocol that would run atop of a
layer 2 transport and not mandate an IP layer. SNMP came across as a
candidate, seems to meet quite well the requirements and it's there, no
need to invent something new. 

> Bert

Thanks and Regards,

Dan
> > 
>