[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Status of ID: IPsec Flow Monitoring MIB
rks@cisco.com wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> From: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
> Date: On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:23:03 -0400
>
> >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?
>
> I have looked through the IKE and IPsec monitoring MIBs
> and I am a bit confused about the purpose of these "low level" MIBs.
> Why were these defined and what problem are they meant to solve?
> MIBs that dish out bits of the protocol merely because the bits
> happen to be there, serve very little purpose (let's call
> such MIBs "protocol MIBs").
I think Tim did a nice job of answering this.
> Why would an administrator use them instead of the command
> line interface (I am not sure there is a device out there
> that supports SNMP protocol but not management through
> telnet)?
RedCreek devices support SNMP, but not telnet-based device management.
<trimmed...>
> There has not been any discussion on these MIBs, leave alone
> a debate contrasting the two approaches (the Jenkins drafts and
> the IPsec Flow Monitoring MIB, proposed by us).
>
> Hence, how can it be appropriate to take these drafts to the
> final call?
I think these drafts and MIBs have been discussed at length - just not
recently. I believe the wg minutes and archives will bear this out.
Scott
Follow-Ups:
References: