Re: MIB-II on proxied chassis entities.
gallagher@quiver.enet.dec.com Mon, 20 July 1992 19:49 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-chassismib>
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA20881; Mon, 20 Jul 92 15:49:09 -0400
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA20872; Mon, 20 Jul 92 15:48:58 -0400
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA06146; Mon, 20 Jul 92 12:48:55 -0700
Received: by us1rmc.bb.dec.com; id AA12101; Mon, 20 Jul 92 15:44:53 -0400
From: gallagher@quiver.enet.dec.com
Message-Id: <9207201944.AA12101@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>
Received: from quiver.enet; by us1rmc.enet; Mon, 20 Jul 92 15:47:24 EDT
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 15:47:24 -0400
To: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
Cc: gallagher@quiver.enet.dec.com
Apparently-To: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: MIB-II on proxied chassis entities.
Keith, >Of course, if there isn't a real agent after all, one *might* argue that >lineCard1's view doesn't need to contain a snmp group. Okay, then I need to back up and ask a much simpler question. Is my assumption, "...the minimal MIB-II implementation has the system and snmp groups" bogus? I'll argue that having individual snmp groups in this case adds no value. Do you see the chassis MIB providing guidance in this area, or will it be left an implementation specific issue? -Shawn
- Re: MIB-II on proxied chassis entities. Keith McCloghrie
- MIB-II on proxied chassis entities. gallagher
- Re: MIB-II on proxied chassis entities. gallagher
- Re: MIB-II on proxied chassis entities. Keith McCloghrie