RE: RE : [ippm] comments on draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-04.txt

Emile-
   I am back in the office and would be happy to arrange a demo for anyone,
either here in the lab or via an external interface.
Jessie

-----Original Message-----
From: STEPHAN Emile FTRD/DAC/LAN 
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:40 AM
To: Andy Bierman; Matthew J Zekauskas; ippm@ietf.org
Subject: RE : [ippm] comments on draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-04.txt

Dear Matt and Andy,

The input I received from Matt was to focus on the implemtation of the MIB
as an proxy rather than an agent embedded in each probe.

When the IPPM MIB is implemeted as a proxy it is an application on the top
of the measurement system that makes a first level of aggregation for NMS
and that provides a SNMP interface to the measurement system.

Collecting results take a lot of place either in Surveyor the IPPM MIB, in
the RMON MIB or in a IPFIX collector. The rule of the IPPM MIB is to make an
initial consolidation of the result to avoid to flood NMS application with
unrelevant information.

FTRD has implemented the proxy on the top of an industrial measurement
system. I can make a live demo of it during the meeting or after.

Best Regards
Emile

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Matthew J Zekauskas [mailto:matt@internet2.edu] 
Envoyé : jeudi 13 novembre 2003 17:23
À : ippm@ietf.org
Cc : Matt Zekauskas
Objet : Re: [ippm] comments on draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-04.txt

As chair, I'd like to say that Andy's comment below is what I've heard
informally, but no one has to-date posted to the list.  I'd like to ask
others to read the draft, and comment on the complexity (or any other area)
--  do you agree, or do you think that the current draft is on the right
track.

With my chair hat off, I concur with Andy's assessment below. What I always
intended to implement with Surveyor was a simple scheme to export the basic
data types; if there was any complex manipulation, it would be done by the
software playing the role as a network management system.

--Matt

--On Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:02 AM -0800 Andy Bierman
<abierman@cisco.com> wrote:

> Although a good job has been done documenting this MIB,
> IMO it is too complex to be deployable.  The resource requirements in 
> the agent are very large.  Some of the tables can get extremely large, 
> which would lead to poor SNMP performance.  The resource limitation 
> mechanisms do not align well with actual SNMP agent implementation
> constraints.
>
> This MIB is way too complicated and contains too many features that 
> should be provided by an EMS or NMS.  There are likely to be many 
> implementation difficulties due to undocumented (and unforeseen) 
> interactions between features. The MIB should be simplified to collect 
> metric values and provide aggregation reports which can be retrieved
> via SNMP.  Analysis of the reports, threshold based
> exception handling, sending email and pages to administrators,
> etc. should be left to the application.

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

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