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

Josh Littlefield <> Tue, 27 September 2005 16:57 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EKIm1-0004S6-Nh; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:57:45 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EKIlz-0004Rw-TI for; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:57:44 -0400
Received: from (ietf-mx []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25417 for <>; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:57:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EKItG-00039S-VO for; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:05:16 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2005 09:57:33 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,150,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="11435835:sNHT21235004"
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j8RGvRTA002234 for <>; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:57:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:57:18 -0400
Received: from [] ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:57:17 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:57:17 -0400
From: Josh Littlefield <>
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Call-home] draft now posted; BoF?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2005 16:57:17.0868 (UTC) FILETIME=[84A8C6C0:01C5C384]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues relating to &quot; call home&quot; functionality and firewall traversal" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

> 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.


Call-home mailing list