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

RE: the future of SNMP

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

Yes.  My primary concern was that I don't want SNMP to fall by the wayside -
some of us still want to use it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 5:22 PM
To: Bruce Shaw; 'eos@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: RE: the future of SNMP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Shaw [mailto:Bruce.Shaw@gov.ab.ca]
> Sent: woensdag 26 februari 2003 21:01
> To: 'eos@ops.ietf.org'
> Subject: the future of SNMP
> I certainly intend to continue SNMP into the future.  Given 
> that systems administrators are being asked to monitor more
> servers, especially rack-mounted server farms, we really
> aren't left any choice in the matter.
> As SNMP is cross-platform, a vendor specific methodology is 
> not going to work.
> I would like to see expansion of existing MIBS.  I am current 
> working on HOST-RESOURCES-MIB.
Thanks for your input.
Sofar, that does not seem to warrant or support extra effort to
extend SNMP protocol (which is what EOS was intended for) but
rather to focus on more MIB objects for more/better monitoring.

Is my interpretation of your statement correct?


This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is
addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and or privileged
information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action
relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply,
should be deleted or destroyed.