Re: [Call-home] draft now posted; BoF?

> Bert> I find your examples weak. I am not aware of wide-use of SNMP to
> Bert> manage/monitor laptops or wireless phones. If others are, then
> Bert> please let me/us know about that.
> 
> Bert I suspect one of the reasons you don't find that is that it is
> indeed difficult.  I've worked in many environments where desktop
> machines were managed at least in part using SNMP.  When you don't
> know the final transport address to manage a laptop, of course you
> couldn't do it today.  That's his point.

Yes, that's exactly the point.

Using SNMP today to manage devices behind a NAT or firewall is difficult 
and can require STUN or ICE.  In general, it is not worth the trouble. 
An SSH-based SNMP will present even more difficulty.

Service providers wishing to manage home devices in the face of 
household NATs are at a loss.  The SIPPING WG has defined a 
configuration framework for deliverying device configuration profiles 
across a NAT to SIP devices in a call-home fashion triggered by SIP 
NOTIFY messages, but they have no solution for management.  The DSL 
Forum has defined a call-home style protocol (TR-069), using a form of 
SOAP sitting somewhat backward on HTTP, for combined configuration and 
management of conformant devices.  In other technologies, operators 
happily using SNMP for management of non-NATed subscriber devices now 
are being forced to consider a variety of non-SNMP alternatives to 
support management and diagnosis of new devices in the home.

If the IETF chooses not to consider and solve the call-home problem in 
the face of new SNMP transports, it is essentially abandoning management 
of this large new class of devices, and leaving it to the industry to 
create a hodge-podge of solutions.

Josh

_______________________________________________
Call-home mailing list
Call-home@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/call-home