'Chassis MIB' WG Reactivation
Dan Romascanu <dan@lannet.com> Sun, 26 December 1993 09:53 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10999; 26 Dec 93 4:53 EST
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10995; 26 Dec 93 4:53 EST
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (8.6.4/2.8s-UTK) id EAA25809; Sun, 26 Dec 1993 04:27:36 -0500
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Sun, 26 Dec 1993 04:27:35 EST
Errors-to: owner-chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from uu4.psi.com by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (8.6.4/2.8s-UTK) id EAA25802; Sun, 26 Dec 1993 04:27:27 -0500
Received: from world.lannet.com by uu4.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; id AA26148 for chassismib@cs.utk.edu; Sun, 26 Dec 93 04:26:47 -0500
Received: from moon.lannet.com by gandalf.lannet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13734; Sun, 26 Dec 93 11:30:37 IST
Received: from gandalf.lannet.com by moon.lannet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17396; Sun, 26 Dec 93 11:31:26 IST
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 11:31:26 -0000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Dan Romascanu <dan@lannet.com>
Message-Id: <9312260931.AA17396@moon.lannet.com>
To: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
Subject: 'Chassis MIB' WG Reactivation
Cc: 76447.444@compuserve.com, snmp@psi.net
Hello, Bob Millen's message came just in time to remind us that 1993 is (almost) over and together with it the moratorium period concerning opening of new WGs in the Network Management Area. Bob states correctly that there is an accute need of defining a standard method for the management of compound devices. On my opinion the time elapsed since the activity in the Chassis MIB WG was interrupted only enhanced the need. We should learn from the mistakes of the past (the list is long, we did not limit and define a clear-enough scope, key people were involved in too many parallel activities,...), take the good things (we had many well articulated technical proposals, so that a new activity needs not be begun from zero) and rectivate this activity. We might even change the name to something else if 'Chassis MIB' arrises traumatic memories to anyone. We have a problem which needs and can be soved. Let's approach it. A Happy New Year to everybody dan@lannet.com Dan Romascanu, LANNET Data Communications Ltd., Tel Aviv, ISRAEL, Voice: 972-3-645-8414 ============================================================================== FORWARDED MESSAGE We have two network management requirements associated with on-going development of our product line. It is my suspicion that a number of developers of managed network products have similar requirements. >From a very limited review of the proxy conventions described in the SNMPv2 "Administrative Model" document (RFC1445) it appears that both of our requirements might be met by these provisions. One of our requirements might also be met by the Chassis MIB. We're not especially familiar with the Chassis MIB either, but our impression is that, at least so far, it is not attracting a wide following. Requirement 1: Standard Management of 'Foreign' Device ======================================================= This is the standard requirement of managing non-SNMP devices with an SNMP Management Station. A little of our history might help motivate my question. We currently have an SNMPv1 proxy to our pre-SNMP network products. In our analysis of our options when we designed this proxy we seemed to have two basic choices. 1) We could play games with the community string on SNMP requests. While there were suggestions about this in the IETF community, there was no agreed upon approach. We wanted an approach that would allow the various high runner Management Stations to manage our proxied devices without our having to write special management applications for each Management Station package that our customer might want to use. We found there was no widely adhered to standard proxy approach. 2) The only approach that occurred to us which solved this problem was to have our proxy look like an IP router to the network manager. Our proxy makes the network manager 'think' that it is a router with all of the proxied devices on a different IP network number than the management station. There were several problems with this approach. It was a hassle getting our proxy to the point where the network manager really believed that our proxy was a properly functioning IP router. Most of our initial difficulties were associated with our learning curve. But along the way we discovered some bugs in the primary network management package we use. (We use HP's Network Node Manager [NNM], which is part of HP's OpenView Unix package.) With this approach one must 'make up' an IP address and MAC address for each proxied device so that the network manager can deal with it in a standard way. For our first proxy requirement this wasn't too onerous. We were able to map our device's proprietary address in a one-to-one way to an IP address. Also NNM seems to be happy with MAC addresses of zero. We haven't had much experience with other management stations and this proxy. I suspect that we would have to do some tweaks in many cases to get things to work as successfully as they currently are with NNM. We now have a new requirement where the number of proxied devices is such that the above approach won't work. There is no clean mapping of our proprietary device addresses to IP addresses. We don't want that many bogus IP addresses floating around even if we could come up with such a mapping. So I guess the bottom line question relative to our standard proxy requirement boils down to the following. Does SNMPv2 provide a complete enough documentation of a standard proxy approach so that any proxy created according to spec can plug and play with any Network Manager that supports the spec. I have two main concerns here. My sense is that the SNMPv2 proxy details aren't quite complete enough for this. I also have no sense that proxy writers and network manager writers are diligently working to have their products plug and play in this fashion. Requirement 2: Standard Management of 'Compound' Devices ========================================================= This requirement is more along the lines of what I understand the Chassis MIB to be aimed at. Again, an example will motivate what we need. One of the devices in our product line is a mutliport Bridge. We refer to it as our Ethernet Bridge Card (EBC). (A crude representation follows.) FDDI Ring _____________________________ / \ / \ \ / \_____________________________/ | | |1 ______|_______ | | | FDDI | Ethernet | MIB | Bridge 5_____| | Card (EBC) | | 6_____| | | Bridge | 7_____| MIB | | | 8_____| | | | | 2 3 4 | |______________| |____|____|____| <-- 3 Repeaters (Each Repeater has 8 10BaseT ports and one AUI connection) The EBC bridges eight (8) segments. Segments 5 through 8 are proprietary to Intecom. They allow wide area bridging through the switching fabric of our integrated voice and data PBX (private branch exchange). The 'compound' nature of our device is that it is a bridge and also three hubs. When we looked at options to manage this device we were disappointed to find that the Repeater MIB only supports a single repeater. When we complained to the Repeater MIB mailing list we were told that the Chassis MIB was the solution to our problem. It doesn't seem to us that the Chassis MIB directly fits our problem. We don't have a chassis. Also it seems that the Chassis MIB isn't being taken seriously by very many developers. (Is this an incorrect impression on our part?) To get around the problem we created additions to our private MIB patterned after the repeater MIB. Now our single EBC agent can provide management information for the bridge (via the standard Bridge MIB) and the three repeaters (via our proprietary MIB). We have written special 'card view' management applications that allow us to provide convenient monitoring of the information available from our private MIB, but we would prefer a more standard approach. Thus, we have been lead to wonder if some kind of standard SNMPv2 proxy approach might be the answer. As an example, the agent in the EBC could make each repeater appear to be a proxied device. Each proxied repeater would support "it's own" standard Repeater MIB. If all writers of compound device agents and writers of management stations had a standard approach to follow in this area, across the board 'plug and play' management of compound devices might happen. How likely is that to happen with the current SNMPv2 proxy specification? Is there another more likely approach? Is the Chassis MIB not all that dead? HP OpenView Direction ===================== My immediate hope in the responses that I get from this message is to come up with an understanding of a standards oriented strategy that addresses both of these requirements. Before we apply development effort in that direction I hope to get a feeling that HP plans to go in a similar direction in providing standard management in these two different situations. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Bob Millen Intecom Inc. Liberty Plaza II 5057 Keller Springs Road Dallas, Texas 75248 Internet: 76447.444@CompuServe.COM PHONE: 214-447-8069 FAX: 214-447-8071
- 'Chassis MIB' WG Reactivation Dan Romascanu
- Re: 'Chassis MIB' WG Reactivation Dan Romascanu