RE: SNMP over Ethernet

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

Sure it helps. I must have missed or forgotten this response. 

If I understand well, the Internet-Draft would define a
snmpEthernetDomain OID and maybe a snmpEthernetAddress TC. Actually I
need to check if such a TC for a MAC address exists, I would be
surprised if we did not define it before. If we did this in the past, do
we need another TC? 

Now, it's good to have those defined as we did for other transports in
3417, but from a technical point of view the content of RFC 1089 still
applies, right? RFC 1089 defines a distinct Ethertype for packets
carrying SNMP over Ethernet. Does anybody see a need to change this or
define a distinct Ethertype for SNMPv3?

Thanks and Regards,

Dan




 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:59 PM
> To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: SNMP over Ethernet
> 
> This is what Juergen respondend back in Nov and I agreed.
> 
> Does that Help Dan?
> 
> Bert
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]On
> > Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 08:43
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Cc: Mreview (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: SNMP over Ethernet
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 03:33:38AM +0200, Romascanu, Dan 
> (Dan) wrote:
> >   
> > > 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 would say that a new document needs to be created which obsoletes 
> > RFC 1089 and which defines the necessary infrastructure, at least a 
> > suitable transport domain TC and OID definition.
> > 
> > > BTW, is the old SNMP list still active? I presume that 
> most people 
> > > are on both lists anyway.
> > 
> > I would expect that most email addresses will bounce these days. I 
> > think this is something rather straight forward to define where an 
> > individual draft can actually be lifted on the standards track with 
> > the appropriate review organized by the AD and the longer IETF last 
> > call process.
> > 
> > /js
> > 
> > -- 
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International 
> University Bremen
> > <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 
> > 28725 Bremen, Germany
> > 
>