RE: [dhcwg] Use of SNMP instead of leasequery

comments in-line

--Barr


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms
> Sent: Tuesday, 06 April 2004 17:21
>
> Bert Wijnen:
> - what is the status of this solution vs. DHCP MIB
> solution (I thought they were competing solutions
> some time back).
> - The DHC MIB has also been submitted for PS,
> no? I know it is still in MIB Doctor review... but
> it is a 2nd solution to same problem.
> - The reasoning for not using SNMP and MIB seem
> very weak to me
>
...the MIB effort grew out of traffic engineering and
troubleshooting activities at Pacific*Bell, and was
primarily intended as a method of gathering performance
statistics about the servers we operated and the load
presented to them by our very large installation [for that
time.]  Despite the presence in the proposed DHCPv4 server
MIB of objects that report configuration and [status]
information. DHCPLEASEQUERY is intended to provide detailed,
specific information about individual leases, while the MIB
was intended to provide more generic, server-wide aggregated
or summarized data.  Also, the DHCPLEASEQUERY message type
is not required to be supported by all DHCPv4 servers:  the
I-D does not make that demand for either existing or new
server implementations.


> Ted Hardie:
> It's too bad that SNMP is off the table here, as
> that would give you a realistic way to limit data
> to specific queries and queries.
>
...my primary objection to making the information reported
by responses to DHCPLEASEQUERY messages accessible through
the DHCPv4 server MIB is that processing of DHCPLEASEQUERY
messages is not required of all DHCPv4 servers:  my sense
from the MIB Doctor review of the proposed server MIB is
that defining optional MIB objects and objects for optional
features is discouraged.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg