[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...
I beg to differ. The series submitted by John Shriver and me
does not 'compete' with the flow monitoring MIB.
The series John and I submitted defines the components of IPsec
as developed by the working group and are application independent.
If you use only some components of the work done in the IPsec WG,
you only some of the MIBs.
The flow monitoring MIB is an application specific MIB which
redefines the presentation of the components of IPsec in that
single application specific MIB.
I think the working group really needs to ask:
1) Do the MIBs submitted by John and I represent the work developed
by the working group?
2) Should the working group develop an application specific MIB for
IPsec?
If the answer to 2) is yes, then the obvious next question is:
3) Should any application specific MIB re-use the MIBs that represent
the work done by the working group, or should it be a stand-alone
MIB?
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rks@cisco.com [mailto:rks@cisco.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 6:28 PM
> To: Casey Carr
> Cc: Theodore Tso; Barbara Fraser; Barry Bruins;
> ipsec@lists.tislabs.com;
> Cheryl Madson; Narasimha; leot@cisco.com
> Subject: RE: Status of ID: IPsec Flow Monitoring MIB
>
>
Follow-Ups: