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

Re: snmpconf General Functional Questions

on 06/09/2000 2:20 PM, Joel M. Halpern at joel@mcquillan.com wrote:

> It may be as straight-forward as you and Jon suggest.
> But, somehow, I can see ending up in interesting states.
> For example, using the daytime / nighttime case, someone overrides the
> current (daytime) policy on some instance.  It becomes night, and the
> nighttime policy takes effect.  It was not overriden.  Then, it is no
> longer nighttime.  But, the daytime policy is still overriden.  So the
> instances remains set as the nighttime policy specified?  That is unlikely
> to be the desired effect.  But I tend to strongly shy away from policies
> which can unwind themselves to "previous" states where those are unspecified.
> The obvious alternative is that if an object is touched manually, then it
> is blocked from policy. Or maybe only from policies which were already in
> the box when the attribute was changed?
> Still looks complicated to me.

You may be winning me over. What would you say to a rule:

If an element under policy control has any attribute (read MIB Object)
changed that is under policy control, then it has the exemption bit set that
Matt and I wrote about (the don't touch bit) set. It remains in this state
until manually changed back. Dale made a good point that is at some point
the policy might need to change.