Re: [GSMP] draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-01.txt

avri <avri@apocalypse.org> Fri, 29 March 2002 11:50 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA08883 for <gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:50:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id GAA02412 for gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:50:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA02249; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:45:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA02218 for <gsmp@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:45:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from apocalypse.org (IDENT:root@apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA08831 for <gsmp@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:45:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from apocalypse.org (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apocalypse.org (8.11.2/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g2TBj9k19126 for <gsmp@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:45:09 -0500
Message-ID: <3CA4539E.10200@apocalypse.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:44:30 +0100
From: avri <avri@apocalypse.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gsmp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [GSMP] draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-01.txt
References: <65256B89.0042C0E2.00@sandesh.hss.hns.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: gsmp@ietf.org
Sender: gsmp-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: gsmp-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: General Switch Management Protocol <gsmp.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: gsmp@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

kpradeep@hss.hns.com wrote:

> 
> Hi,
>     How does SNMP differ from GSMP?Is SNMP replacement for GSMP.Pls do explain
> me how do they differ
> 


Hi,

While in some very abstracted and general sense, SNMP and 
MIBs could be directed to most any configuration and control 
task, its mechanisms are not well suited for many specific 
control tasks.  In fact the design and use of SNMP seems to 
be largely limited to its use as a way to get status from a 
device rather then to direct the configuration or real time 
behavior of a device.  Although, admittedly there are those 
that do try to bend SNMP to dynamic control and 
configuration tasks.

In the case of GSMP, the protocol has been specialized to 
deal with the needs of a label switch (loosely defined as
any switch that makes its forwarding decisions based on a
small pre-defined set of fields in a packet).  I.e. instead 
of supporting multiple arbitrary information models through 
the use of  MIBs, it is constructed around the specific 
needs of label switches that are separated from their 
controllers.


a.
-- 


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