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

RE: snmpconf FW: November Milestones



Randy,

I think that I understood the intent of your question. This is a valid
concern, and the SNMPCONF WG is supposed to try to deal with it in the BCP
document. Though policy configuration is right now the focus of the SNMPCONF
WG, the broader issue of any SNMP configuration in the larger networks space
should be even a bigger concern. After all,  if operators today do not trust
SNMP for any kind of router configuration in large networks, why should they
do it for policies? What should be done to change this situation? As and if
answers will come back to the TE-WG list, the summary will certainly
interest the SNMPCONF constituency.

BTW, it would be useful to use a 'wearing my ... hat' type of disclaimer
whenever you post such messages. It would help making the distinction
between Randy_the_operator and Randy_the_Area_Director.

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Randy Bush [SMTP:randy@psg.com]
> Sent:	Sun December 03 2000 8:31
> To:	Dan Romascanu
> Cc:	'snmpconf@snmp.com'
> Subject:	Re: snmpconf FW: November Milestones
> 
> > The SNMPCONF WG might be interesting in this message, from one of our
> Area
> > Directors.
> 
> actually, i was saying it as an operator, and in response to a question of
> whether a mib should be designed for config as well as read.  my question
> of
> whether any large operators do puts was really meant at face value.  i
> really want to know if any large providers enable and use write.
> 
> randy