[dhcwg] RE: draft-bakke-dhc-snmp-trap-00.txt

["Harrington, David" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mark,

The bulk of the current usage of SNMP is for monitoring, not configuring.
There are few mib objects that would require dynamic configuration. However,
it could be a very interesting discussion to start with the SNMP community
via the SNMPv3 list.

We're trying to wrap up and close the SNMPv3 WG. I think the discussion
would need to move to a different forum, but which forum depends to a large
degree on nature of the proposals that might come out of the discussion.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Bakke [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 4:42 PM
> To: Harrington, David
> Cc: '[e-mail]'
> Subject: Re: draft-bakke-dhc-snmp-trap-00.txt
> 
> 
> David-
> 
> Thanks for the advice.  I just had a chance to go over 2571, 
> 73, and 74, and
> I think I can take a better shot at this (at least the 
> notification part).  I'll
> post to both dhcwg and the snmpv3 lists.
> 
> As far as the scope for this, I was initially just setting out to do
> enough for notifications.  Do you think that there is interest in
> configuring other agent parameters as well?
> 
> -
> Mark
> 
> > "Harrington, David" wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Mark,
> > 
> > RFC1448 is a remnant of the obsolete SNMPv2 specs. Nobody 
> supports the old RFC144x specifications.
> > You should be using SNMPv3 specifications. The most current 
> RFCs are 2570-2580, and approved
> > updates are in the editor's RFC queue.
> > 
> > RFC2573 defines a number of mibs that can be configured to 
> identify notification targets. If you
> > examine those mibs, you will find that there is more 
> information needed than just an address.
> > Therefore, your proposed message would need to contain more 
> to centrally configure SNMP targets
> > properly.
> > 
> > dbh
> > 
> > David Harrington
> > co-chair SNMPv2 WG
> > Network Management Architect
> > Office of the CTO
> > Enterasys Networks
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Mark A. Bakke
> Cisco Systems
> [e-mail]
> 763.398.1054
>