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 92 15:47:24 EDT
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