[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Status of ID: IPsec Flow Monitoring MIB

Casey -

   On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Casey Carr wrote:

   > Are there IETF alternative specifications for monitoring
   > IPSec via SNMP?  If not, what would the working group recommend
   > for monitoring IPSec performance?

There are indeed two competing drafts for IKE and IPsec
monitoring and there is an unfortunate similarity in
their names. The one submitted by  Cisco and Tivoli Inc.
is

  "IPsec Flow Monitoring MIB"

I'd love to hear your comments on this draft (and from those in
your engineering and marketing groups planning to design
management applications based on SNMP for your product.)

Thanks,

Rk
x77309

----
S Ramakrishnan, Cisco Systems Inc., San Jose, Ca

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Casey Carr wrote:

   > cipherOptics has committed to implement both the IPSec and IKE monitoring
   > MIBs.  This effort is scheduled to begin within the next few months.  Since
   > we have not started this effort, we can not give any constructive feedback
   > on these MIBs.
   >
   > Are there IETF alternative specifications for monitoring IPSec via SNMP?  If
   > not, what would the working group recommend for monitoring IPSec
   > performance?
   >
   > Casey



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> [mailto:owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com]On Behalf Of Theodore Tso
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 2:23 PM
> To: Scott G. Kelly
> Cc: Barbara Fraser; Tim Jenkins; 'rks@cisco.com'; tytso@mit.edu;
> bbruins@cisco.com; ipsec@lists.tislabs.com; leot@cisco.com
> Subject: Re: Status of ID: IPsec Flow Monitoring MIB
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 02:49:14PM -0700, Scott G. Kelly wrote:
> > RedCreek has implemented the ipsec monitoring mib, and intends to
> > implement the IKE monitoring mibs. Once we reach agreement on a tunnel
> > mib, we may implement that as well.
>
> Thanks Scott, for responding.
>
> Are there any other vendors/implementors which have implmeneted the
> various proposed MIBs?  Although having multiple implementations isn't
> a requirement for the first level of standardization, it always
> worries me when I-D's are advanced with minimal levels of
> implementation.  Problems are much more easily fixed before the spec
> achieves RFC status, since there's much less of a deployed base.
>
> Which leads us to the next question... assuming that there is only one
> attempt to implement the I-D's, what is the working group's feeling
> about advancing the documents?
>
> 						- Ted
>
>
>
>
References: