Re: snmpv2 Will it flood us or be slow

[John Seligson <[e-mail]>]

Martin, 

> 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.

Many of the benefits of SNMPv2 can be gained with very little cost.
The new descriptive error codes and exception values, not to mention
GetBulk retrieval, are substantial improvements that require very little
additional development effort.  In many ways, these new constructs
have the potential to decrease processing power requirements.  Granted,
the new administrative framework, if fully implemented, will lead to the
increases you mention, though I would argue that the increases do not
necessarily need to be "drastic".  Utilizing noAuth/noPriv communication
does not greatly increase resource costs while it does provide the basis
through which the aforementioned benefits can be gained. There are other
methods through which the costs of the new administrative framework can be
mitigated, such as those outlined by Keith McCloghrie in the May/June 1993
issue of the Simple Times.

I would also like to add that many of the new SNMPv2 SMI and conformance
constructs, such as the MODULE-IDENTITY macro, the OBJECT-GROUP macro, the
MODULE-COMPLIANCE macro and the AGENT-CAPABILITIES macro, have the potential
to provide tremendous benefits for both NMS and agent developers.  These
items are often overlooked when discussing the pros and cons of SNMPv2.

I must agree with Karl that administrative configuration is a BIG issue 
that must be dealt with.  Some folks are working on this, such as
Wollongong, who demonstrated their simple SNMPv2 configuration utility at
InterOp a few month ago.

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

As for your suspicions, it is my experience that a large number of the
standards proposed in any forum provide either direct or indirect benefits
to the proposers.  It is up to the community to judge and possibly modify
the proposals as best they can to insure that the community benefits as well.
Suspicions, as long as they lead to unbiased evaluation and sound technical
proposals, are good.  Suspicions that inhibit technology advancement simply
because of an author or percieved "pecunary interest" are bad.

Please excuse my verbosity.

John