Re: snmpv2 pros and cons

["Lee D. Rothstein" <[e-mail]>]

> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 14:29:49 -0400
> From: Bill Norton <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: snmpv2 Will it flood us or be slow 
> 
> Karl -
> 
> I'm actually being swayed towards the other side by the workable
> reference implementations.  I fetched the ISODE and CMU implementations
> and have been doing interoperability experiments.

I must have been sleeping during earlier exchanges (:-(); ISODE is
manageable through SNMP2? What is going on here? SNMP1? CMIP? CMOT? (Sorry
to be so dense.)

> 2) The end-user shouldn't notice much of a difference during normal
> operations, right?  The users are really concerned about getting at the
> instrumentation, and both SNMPv2 and SNMPv2 provide that.  In fact
                            ^^^^^^     ^^^^^^
                            ??????     ??????
> SNMPv2 will make apps like stats gathering and table dumps quicker.
> 
> 3) I (in theory) agree that SNMPv2 problems, if they arise, will be more
> difficult to debug.  Problems like clock synching, secret exchanges,
> diagnosing authentication and encryption implementation problems, and
> diagnosing problems when the data is encrypted seems like it would be
> trouble.

Have there not been proposals for these problems?

> 4) These reference implementations don't include all the pieces (ISODE
> doesn't have Manager-to-manager or privacy) making it difficult to
> explore these potential problems.
> 
>   >1) It is very easy for people who are 'in' to things to think
>   >that everyone else has the same level of commitment and interest.
>   >They can end up designing somthing that may be very elegant and
>   >comprehensive but is totally unusable by end users. SNMP achieved
>   >acceptance because it was 'simple' - to implement, to use and to
>   >diagnose. What we are looking at with v2 is somthing that - while
>   >it addresses shortcomings in v1 - requires drastic increases in
>   >storage, processing power and developer time. This does not bode
>   >well.
> 
> Well come on now Karl, you don't believe companies are sending
> their employees here for totally altruistic reasons, do you?

Should the abobe sentence have been displaced downward one paragraph?

>   >2) I'm inherently suspicous of draft standards that are proposed
>   >by people who may have a pecunary interest in their being
>   >adopted.




                  <> Lee D. Rothstein <> [e-mail] <>
     <> VeriTech <> 7 Merrymeeting Drive <> Merrimack, NH 03054-2934 <>
                    <> 603-424-2900 <> Fax: [phone] <>
            <> Information Technology Verification & Leadership <>