Subject: [midcom] SNMP - using as a transport layer?

From: "Pete Cordell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:18:31 +0100

I'm not expert on SNMP, so this may not be a valid comment, but I'll ask it
anyway...

A number of comments in the evaluation document indicate that SNMP is
compliant subject to a suitable MIB being defined (P+).

I'm just wondering if in those instances we would not just be using SNMP
effectively as a transport layer for conveying opaque data (which is what
SNMP is essentially about).

I guess SNMP offers versioning, security and a format for parameters.  But
something like TLS (or IPSec) would offer security and specifying versioning
and parameter formats isn't that hard.

I'm just wondering then if SNMP is offering as much as it first appears !!!

Regards,

Pete.

=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware
[email-masked]
+44 1473 635863
=============================================

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 16:32:17 +0200

> SNMP is essentially about).

What about MEGACO? You have to define a MIDCOM package (in contrast to a 
  SNMP MIB) , so this is another transport layer protocol? In my opinion 
MEGACO and SNMP do offer more than just a simple "transport layer like" 
service.

> I'm just wondering then if SNMP is offering as much as it first appears !!!

Discusssions on this mailing list showed that you are not the
only one wondering. Is it really that surprising?

SNMP is a management protocol that is successfully used for
more than a decade and it is built into most of today's
IP devices.

Why do you assume it would not be very well suited for
performing management tasks?

Regards
Juergen and Martin

---

From: "Pete Cordell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 20:51:58 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>

> MEGACO and SNMP do offer more than just a simple "transport layer like"

Yes the same probably applies to MEGACO.  (Although perhaps it has the
slight addition of being aware of connections.  That difference may not be
significant though.)

> more than a decade and it is built into most of today's

I don't doubt its pedigree.  But then my old car was more than a decade old
also.  That of itself does not make my old car ideal for middlebox control
:-)

> performing management tasks?

Depends whether we see midcom as a management task.  I see management as an
occasional largely human directed activity with a large dose of monitoring.
Midcom seems different to me with lots of automated high frequency
interaction.  Thus to me saying SNMP is good for management doesn't imply
that it's good for midcom.

Equally it doesn't imply that SNMP is bad for midcom and I can see that
there are benefits to using it.  I just want us to be sure that we don't end
up with something that is less than what we expected.

Pete.