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

Re: snmpconf FW: November Milestones

[ operator hat only ]

> few major network equipment vendors allow configuration with anything
> other than via flat files and CLI commands.

in the backbone router market, there are two vendors.  both claim that their
equipment can be configured using snmp write.  i just don't know anyone who
has tried it.

> The reason is; CLI's and file transfer will not continue to scale at least
> at a human level. The economics of the availability of personnel who can
> manage networks that are controlled with CLI's will be the factor that
> causes operators to ask for something better. That has not happened until
> recently.

to keep apples and apples, how many people can type snmp stuff directly to a
router?  darned few.  and who cares?

like mibs, the text config files are merely an intermediate representation.
do not underestimate the value of being able to email snippets of configs,
cvs them, diff them, ...  there is a vast array of tools which work on text.
think about having to write a tool to determine the difference between a
running config and a proposed new config and emailing an easily understood
representation of the poposed change to a distributed team.

> Configuration is the heart of management. To the extent MIB Documents
> are created in each of the different technology areas such as routing or
> differentiated services (which is the right place), they should be
> designed for full coverage including configuration. There is no excuse
> not to.

i do not intend to discourage those who wish to design for write from doing
so.  but i am not sure i see a need to mandate it when doing so would cause
complexity or architectural change.  and i believe that, and only that, was
the question (in the tewg) that [re]started this rathole.