Re: MIB-II on proxied chassis entities.
email@example.com (Keith McCloghrie) Sun, 19 July 1992 01:55 UTC
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA21152; Sat, 18 Jul 92 21:55:09 -0400
Received: from LANSLIDE.HLS.COM by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA21148; Sat, 18 Jul 92 21:55:05 -0400
Received: from nms.netman (nms.hls.com) by lanslide.hls.com (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA18764; Sat, 18 Jul 92 18:55:22 PDT
Received: by nms.netman (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03131; Sat, 18 Jul 92 18:45:00 PDT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Keith McCloghrie)
Subject: Re: MIB-II on proxied chassis entities.
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 18:45:00 PDT
In-Reply-To: <9207161448.AA17648@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>; from "email@example.com" at Jul 16, 92 10:49 am
Organization: Hughes LAN Systems
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]
> For example, say the Chassis Entity Table contain the following entries: > > Agent: > chasEntityCommunity "public" > chasEntityIpAddress 126.96.36.199 > Proxied Entity 1: > chasEntityCommunity "lineCard1" > chasEntityIpAddress 188.8.131.52 > Proxied Entity 2: > chasEntityCommunity "lineCard2" > chasEntityIpAddress 184.108.40.206 > > so the agent is proxying for "lineCard1" and "lineCard2". > > >From past discussions, the minimal MIB-II implementation has the system > and snmp groups. One could: > > 1) Keep a per proxied entity system group and a per proxied entity > snmp group. So, the agent's snmp group counters count only > those messages directed at 220.127.116.11 on community "public". > lineCard1's snmp group counters count only the snmp messages > directed at 18.104.22.168 on community "lineCard1". Similarly, > lineCard2's snmp group counters count only those messages directed > and 22.214.171.124 on community "lineCard2". > > In other words, there is an individual snmp group per community. > > 2) Keep a per proxied entity system group, and a per proxy agent > snmp group. So, the agent's snmp group counters count all snmp > messages directed at 126.96.36.199 regardless of community. > The counters are the sum of all snmp traffic to "public", > "lineCard1", and "lineCard2". The view of "public" contains > the system, if, ip, etc., and snmp groups. The view of > "lineCard1" and "lineCard2" contains the system and snmp groups. My opinion is that since you have specifically labeled this situation as a case of proxy, the transparency principle should apply, i.e., the manager should notice no difference between retrieving data from the proxy agent, or retrieving data from the real agent (irrespective of whether in fact there is a real agent). So, if lineCard1 has a system group in its view, it should be specific to lineCard1, and if it has a snmp group, it should only count the snmp requests which would (logically) be handled by the "real" agent. Note that the proxy agent also processes those requests, so your agent's native snmp group (you label it "public") should count them also. 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. Keith.