Re: [Roll] RPL MIB

Typo "I cannot agree MORE" ;-)

On Sep 3, 2013, at 8:20 AM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) <jvasseur@cisco.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll