IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] NAT MIB scope

Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> Mon, 12 January 2015 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <sperreault@jive.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234041A90EB for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:48:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GX3WS4A3Aldt for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:48:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 868921A90E3 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:48:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id gd6so24164089lab.3 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:48:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NwjcPZTIX/9z32n4Pv0hXlFfe+XWVSvedfQ6Mgk2LWc=; b=S6lTQ9hh7mgEdcu2PRGP40xy76oDnPkHp5paBoDlBtJ9Q0y9XKgA/E624lxLIPZ9aa 2SV+NYD6idGhjxOf6UWecSKdoMjekEe3q8aKgUYUiXtzydkEZaVm/y6rghJnjXzY27Ha +6AoP6tAlkGKxaXFAc2XhZuwpQlPXSs9QiumZyGiSGjS97Zv+gtnExJbGDvWIO0+icDu J98xeyvU99jC2anw3uxgUW2HxI4Yf9jQl2VuzxSh+JuLcEDkOdDZC9kvjiDi+cVhQUdf 0uKck4gUBv3gUV8MRMJOmpCIitHjbKTB9S3oO5DKxUhyO4ja7N9JoshzBIaQS6Z/1MrY X9eQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQktBzbkm2GcGF26WKxPFQmxwiJH4GNaXEW04BLrfY5gUij2faBWzanjFvVi/9ZcD3fLIDdH
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.19.7 with SMTP id a7mr36298616lae.16.1421070526043; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:48:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.84.145 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:48:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54B2EE69.7020807@gmail.com>
References: <54B2EE69.7020807@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 08:48:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CANO7kWCAEowuYGMj_ynWKjzEpBpYR3u+Ez=J69UODmvnXZwsUg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
To: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01494268e7efbe050c74c337"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/Ces5FbGWZ5FdCC9EO46ohTb1MpE>
Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] NAT MIB scope
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 13:48:50 -0000

Since the beginning I've always said that configuring the NAT with SNMP was
out of scope.

The problem I see is not related to SNMP vs Yang, even though Yang might be
a much better choice. The problem is that NAT implementations vary very
much and their configuration even more so. It might be hard to find common
functionality worth standardizing.

Simon

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Given present policies regarding the respective roles of SNMP and Yang, is
> it reasonable to say that the only configuration data that should be
> present in the NAT MIB is data directly relating to the control or
> interpretation of the remaining contents (i.e., the notifications, state
> information, and statistics)?
>
> I can see a Yang module for NAT configuration in my possible future.
>
> Tom Taylor
>
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email