[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Status of ID: IPsec Flow Monitoring MIB
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
Follow-Ups:
References: