Re: [Roll] RPL MIB

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 02 September 2013 10:32 UTC

From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks' <roll@ietf.org>
References: <d608e067739e4221a948fd420def23bd@DBXPR01MB015.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <23397.1377885103@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <23397.1377885103@sandelman.ca>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:31:34 +0100
Message-ID: <0b7a01cea7c7$9b1b2120$d1516360$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AQF/uVVVEt7Kf+yx5uXlk7YHQAo+fgF/t/WkmkQdv5A=
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL MIB
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>

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] RPL MIB Turner, Randy
Re: [Roll] RPL MIB Michael Richardson
Re: [Roll] RPL MIB Adrian Farrel
Re: [Roll] RPL MIB JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
Re: [Roll] RPL MIB JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
Re: [Roll] RPL MIB Turner, Randy
Re: [Roll] RPL MIB Juergen Schoenwaelder
Re: [Roll] RPL MIB Turner, Randy
Re: [Roll] RPL MIB Juergen Schoenwaelder
Re: [Roll] RPL MIB Turner, Randy
Re: [Roll] RPL MIB peter van der Stok
Re: [Roll] RPL MIB Turner, Randy