Re: ISMS working group

On Sep 7, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> The call home solution doesn't help with the problem of the  
> _manager_ being behind a NAT.  It only applies to situations where  
> the manager is at a fixed location on a globally-addressable  
> network and the managed device is behind a NAT or firewall.

Thanks, Margaret.  I know that some think CH is good and some think  
it isn't, etc.  I'm not taking a stand on that, I'm just saying that  
the standard needs to *handle* these cases.  I actually have no horse  
in that race; I'm sitting at the "deliver SNMP solutions for our  
products to the customer" end of the world, and I want the standard  
-- whatever it is -- to work in these cases.  If CH is a partial  
solution that needs augmenting with another approach, itself also  
incomplete, fine.  If the best that can be done, no matter what  
protocol is defined, is to handle the case you describe, well, nobody  
can do the theoretically impossible and it will have to do.  At least  
it's an important case in this world, and better to include it than not.

But honestly, I didn't mention Call Home or any other approach in my  
letter.  I'm implementation-neutral on the subject.  I'm solution- 
centric -- I want the problems addressed so they are solved.

         Ken

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