Re: DECnet IV MIB issues...
Bob Stewart <email@example.com> Fri, 16 April 1993 19:28 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12415;
16 Apr 93 15:28 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12411; 16 Apr 93 15:28 EDT
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25744; 16 Apr 93 15:28 EDT
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA27906; Fri, 16 Apr 93 12:21:37 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA04763; Fri, 16 Apr 93 11:28:24 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA04759; Fri, 16 Apr 93 11:28:23 -0700
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA25166; Fri, 16 Apr 93 11:28:21 -0700
Received: by xap.xyplex.com id <AA24076@xap.xyplex.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 93 13:28:52 -0500
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 93 13:28:52 -0500
From: Bob Stewart <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In-Reply-To: John A. Shriver's message of Fri, 16 Apr 93 11:11:57 EDT <9304161511.AA01476@ironside.proteon.com>
Subject: Re: DECnet IV MIB issues...
For what it's worth, the network management model for DECnet Phase IV, as reflected in the MIB was done around 1982, in spite of, and slightly contaminated by, considerable design by committee. There is an answer in the works for the multiple instance problem, which is a concern for bridges and repeaters, too. It's the Chassis MIB (the directory), in combination with either SNMPv1 community strings or SNMPv2 parties (the selectors). Bob