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

RE: snmpconf A non-trivial policyAction example

> From: Steve Waldbusser [mailto:waldbusser@nextbeacon.com]

> > Steve> And I don't think that there is any terminology in our
> > Steve> architecture that helps. It's simply pointing out that if the
> > Steve> PM agent and the target agent are on the same system, you can
> > Steve> getint() without issuing a PDU. And if they are in different
> > Steve> subagents on the same system, you can (probably) getint()
> > Steve> without issuing a PDU. And if they are on different
> systems you
> > Steve> probably have to send an SNMP PDU on the wire between the two
> > Steve> systems.
> >
> > ... But given the fact that you stated (as I understood it)
> > that an execution engine can act as a mid-level manager, then the
> > distinction between a "local getint()" and a "remote getint()" does
> > not really matter and you may as well remove that text.
> I disagree - I believe the text is helpful to the implementor
> and should
> remain:
> "Note that no actual SNMP PDU needs to be generated and
> parsed when the
> policy MIB module resides on the same system as the managed elements."

	I would prefer "same network node" to "same system".  Specifically,
I'd prefer text that clearly rules out using a network protocol other than
SNMP for information transfer.  The term "system" is generic to the point of
meaninglessness in computing environments, IMHO.