Re: [Roll] RPL MIB

Hi,

I cannot agree, adding some thoughts: of course, we would need to think very careful on where
such a management MIB would be run and the framework should cover some of the required 
workflow. Indeed, running a RPL MIB on a router would make total sense, but may be simply 
not possible on a low-end node (due to memory but also bandwidth constraint), and this is where
we would need to sync up with CORE.

Cheers.

JP.

On Sep 2, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In this context it might make a lot of sense for some work to be done on a
> "management framework for RPL devices".
> 
> What needs to be configurable? What protocol needs to be visible? What
> information is needed for diagnostics? What alarms/alerts are needed? What are
> the implications of storing logs? What are the implications of sending
> unsolicited notifications and/or of responding to status queries? What protocols
> are appropriate?
> 
> This would lead to an Information model, which might in time lead to a data
> model.
> 
> It is definitely also worth coordinating with CORE to see what they think about
> higher layer protocols to constrained devices.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Michael
>> Richardson
>> Sent: 30 August 2013 18:52
>> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
>> Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL MIB
>> 
>> 
>> Turner, Randy <Randy.Turner@landisgyr.com> wrote:
>>> On the IETF ROLL WG page, I was looking for a current (not expired)
>>> version of the RPL MIB draft, but there doesn?t appear to be one.
>> 
>> It likely expired.
>> 
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sehgal-roll-rpl-mib/
>> 
>>> Can someone let me know what the status of this work is ?
>> 
>> The WG has discussed this question a few times and has not reached any
>> consensus.
>> 
>> Here is the summary:
>> 
>> 1) many feel that an **SNMP** Agent is not going to fit into constrained
> devices.
>> 2) Jurgen has demonstrated it does fit into a class 2 device on using
>>   Contiki.
>> 3) others have pointed out that SNMP is not the only way to deal with a MIB,
>>   and the important things in a MIB is the set of statistics which one might
>>   collect, and transmit in *some* way.
>> 4) opinions have ranged from HTTP / CoAP to NetCONF/YANG as other transport
>>   alternatives to SNMP.
>> 
>> I think that it is simply early for many people to talk about having
>> consistent sets of statistics... BUT. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PROVE ME WRONG.
>> 
>> In particular, I think that *some* standard way to get the network adjacency
>> matrix (as well as the DODAG) out of motes would be very useful for network
>> operators.
>> 
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll