[OPSAWG] 答复: Re: Re: An SNMP Usage for RELOAD
peng.yonglin@zte.com.cn Fri, 28 October 2011 03:56 UTC
Return-Path: <peng.yonglin@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE741F0C54; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -90.695
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-90.695 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.106, BAYES_50=0.001, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n7a2zrBRHt0p; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B751F0C5E; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 466213465113155; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:47:09 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 60802.5026350496; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:56:20 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p9S3uX4q088250; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:56:33 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from peng.yonglin@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <00ea01cc9490$f50eefa0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OFF1EAEA90.6A7D4783-ON48257937.000DA13F-48257937.0015A02E@zte.com.cn>
From: peng.yonglin@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:56:19 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-10-28 11:56:34, Serialize complete at 2011-10-28 11:56:34
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0015A02C48257937_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p9S3uX4q088250
Cc: hao.zhenwu@zte.com.cn, opsawg@ietf.org, p2psip@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG] 答复: Re: Re: An SNMP Usage for RELOAD
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:56:49 -0000
Thanks for Tom's response and Dan's explanation. Please see inline (blue text). "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> 2011-10-27 18:09 收件人 <peng.yonglin@zte.com.cn> 抄送 <hao.zhenwu@zte.com.cn>, <opsawg@ietf.org>, <p2psip@ietf.org>, <wang.wei108@zte.com.cn>, <meng.yu@zte.com.cn> 主题 Re: Re: [OPSAWG] An SNMP Usage for RELOAD ----- Original Message ----- From: <peng.yonglin@zte.com.cn> To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Cc: <hao.zhenwu@zte.com.cn>; <opsawg@ietf.org>; <p2psip@ietf.org>; <wang.wei108@zte.com.cn>; <meng.yu@zte.com.cn> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:02 AM > In short, the relation between SNMP Usage and RELOAD as follows: > SNMP Usage get a available IP address, which is used for SNMP > communication, for snmeEngineID or NodeID or ResourceID or Manager name by > RELOAD mechanism, such as AppAttach, Store, Fetch. > Then SNMP Usage uses this IP address for SNMP communication between SNMP > entities by the SNMP mechanism and architecture which defined in RFC3411 > and RFC5953 and other SNMP RFCs (as depicted in the diagram below). And > now there is little relation between SNMP Usage and RELOAD besides using > RELOAD certificate. So we say "SNMP entities talk to each other using SNMP > protocol on dedicated connections" No, it still does not make sense. You understand that an SNMP engine can do nothing until it has been customised - snmpEngineID, snmpTargetAddrTable, etc - and you use RELOAD to obtain that information; I assume you are familiar with the MIB modules into which that information must then be placed before an engine can communicate. Yes, these information will be placed into MIB. For example, we say when Agent get the address of Manager, it will store the address into MIB(snmpTargetAddrTable) in the diagram in chapter 9. Two engines can then communicate but cannot do anything useful without suitable MIB modules; the I-D says " SNMP usage for RELOAD SHOULD provide the management functions ... ... monitoring the number of the messages initiated, forwarded or processed by nodes, reporting program failure , message forwarding failure or other error on nodes." This is a typical usage for SNMP but is quite impossible unless and until a suitable MIB module is defined, which is what everyone using SNMP for management then does. Your earlier response to David rejected the idea of creating a MIB module, which leaves me with two SNMP engines able to talk to each other but having nothing useful to say. Sorry,our last response maybe confusing. We also think we need MIB module which relates to managed objects of RELOAD. Only because it doesn't affect the implementation mechanism of management, so we plan to study and define it later. For now, we try to resolve the discovery and communication problems for snmpEngines. As our current design does not require a predefined MIB (maybe we miss some pats), we leave the MIB definition for future study. The I-D also says "As traditional network management protocols (e.g., SNMP) cannot be directly applied to RELOAD network management, it is necessary to introduce new RELOAD usage of SNMP." which is only true in the sense that SNMP cannot be directly applied to any network management, unless and until there is a suitable MIB module. Once there is, and you have two communicating engines (which you say you will have), then of course SNMP can be used to manage anything, including RELOAD. Tom Petch > > If you till have questions, please tell us. Thanks! > > > ************************************************* > 邮 件:peng.yonglin@zte.com.cn > 内 线:81543 > 外 线:025-52871543 > 手 机:13776637274 > 传 真:025-52872187 > ************************************************* > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <peng.yonglin@zte.com.cn>; <peng.yonglin@zte.com.cn> > To: <p2psip@ietf.org>; <opsawg@ietf.org>; <p2psip@ietf.org>; > <opsawg@ietf.org> > Cc: <hao.zhenwu@zte.com.cn>; <hao.zhenwu@zte.com.cn> > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 4:23 AM > > > We have done more research on security and other issues based on David's > > comments, and updated our draft. > > > > This is the new version of draft: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peng-p2psip-snmp-03.txt > > > > We welcome any comments! Thanks! > > > > Our analysis of David's comments as follows(blue text): > > > > 1) Use SNMPv3 terminology > > Apparently, you come from the RELOAD side of things, not the SNMP > > side. > > Your text doesn't use the common SNMP terminology for various > > SNMP-related things. > > You will have a better chance of success if you describe SNMP-related > > things using the normal SNMPv3 terminology. > > This isn't critical; your ideas seem reasonable, but since you don't > > use the standard terminology, you might mean slightly different things > > than what it would mean if you used the standard terminology. > > > > (I don't have a RELOAD background, so some of my comments might seem > > wrong because I don't know the RELOAD concepts and terminology. Now > > you'll understand my point ;-) > > > > PYL: We have updated the draft using SNMP terminology. As we are not > SNMP > > experts, some terminology may not be accurate. We will try to improve > this > > over time. > > You are indeed using SNMP terminology, but I struggle to see how its usage > is > the same as in RFC3411. > > RELOAD defines a messaging network, on top of which run applications, > which > RELOAD calls Usages, so when you define an SNMP Usage, you would appear to > be > discarding most of an Architecture for SNMP as defined in RFC3411, perhaps > providing instead a gateway for functionality such as that specified in > RFC3414; > or perhaps not, I do not find the I-D clear on this. Thus you have > > Application > > +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ > | SIP | | XMPP | | SNMP | ... > | Usage | | Usage | | Usage | > +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ > ------------------------------------------- Messaging API > > RELOAD > > but elsewhere you say > ' SNMP entities talk to each other using SNMP protocol on dedicated > connections' > which is rather different. > > The I-D reads more like a wish list of requirements, than an overview, > architecture or framework. Or perhaps it is all beyond me:-( > > Tom Petch > > <snip> -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
- Re: [OPSAWG] An SNMP Usage for RELOAD peng.yonglin
- Re: [OPSAWG] An SNMP Usage for RELOAD t.petch
- [OPSAWG] 答复: Re: An SNMP Usage for RELOAD peng.yonglin
- Re: [OPSAWG] An SNMP Usage for RELOAD t.petch
- Re: [OPSAWG] An SNMP Usage for RELOAD Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [OPSAWG] An SNMP Usage for RELOAD Juergen Schoenwaelder
- [OPSAWG] 答复: Re: Re: An SNMP Usage for RELOAD peng.yonglin
- [OPSAWG] 答复: Re: An SNMP Usage for RELOAD peng.yonglin