RE: SNMP over Ethernet

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

That's what I thought. So, sorry to insist, what are defining a
snmpEthernetDomain OID and maybe a snmpEthernetAddress TC good for -
excepting being consistent with RFC 3417?

Thanks and Regards,

Dan


 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:54 PM
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: SNMP over Ethernet
> 
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> It shoudn't be necessary to have a distinct Ethertype, for 
> the same reason that it was not necessary to allocate new 
> port numbers when
> SNMPv2 and SNMPv3 were added ... each SNMP PDU itself has a 
> means to tell what version you are dealing with.
> 
> //cmh
> 
> 
>