Re: Community strings/IP Addr
gallagher@quiver.enet.dec.com Tue, 21 July 1992 15:26 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-chassismib>
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA09885; Tue, 21 Jul 92 11:26:55 -0400
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA09880; Tue, 21 Jul 92 11:26:51 -0400
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA27856; Tue, 21 Jul 92 08:26:47 -0700
Received: by us1rmc.bb.dec.com; id AA25267; Tue, 21 Jul 92 11:21:16 -0400
From: gallagher@quiver.enet.dec.com
Message-Id: <9207211521.AA25267@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>
Received: from quiver.enet; by us1rmc.enet; Tue, 21 Jul 92 11:25:16 EDT
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:25:16 -0400
To: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
Cc: gallagher@quiver.enet.dec.com
Apparently-To: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Community strings/IP Addr
>Since we are moving in the direction of party based SNMP and there will >be a limited number of implementations of the MIB using community >based SNMP. I vote to remove the community string and the IP address >from the chasEntityTable as Keith suggested. > >Any complaints/ comments from anybody else? > I agree that Parties are the future. We can't be sure just how far out in the future though. Supporting both the Community/IP and Party approaches provides a good migration path. I vote for retaining the Community/IP approach and easing into Party based S[N]MP. -Shawn
- Re: Community strings/IP Addr gallagher
- Community strings/IP Addr David Arneson
- Re: Community strings/IP Addr Manu Kaycee
- Community strings/IP Addr Yoav Kluger