[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: snmpconf Issue #18 resolution - Update capabilities table
Jesus David, good thing disk is cheap these days.
So, in general I think having the ability to advertise well defined and
standardized capabilities might be useful. I'm not so much concerned about
bandwidth to transmit a policy so much as the processor power needed to
compute policies that may not apply to me. In a large and varied network,
I can there being all sorts of policy scripts, many of which may not be
applicable to a given box. I would really rather not waste CPU cycles
determining a script is not applicable to my box...I have enough other
things to do with them.
BTW, it occurs to me that, as an alternative to MIB objects, we could have
a "requires" statement in the policy definition language. This statement
could be used as a hint by the agent to determine whether or not it should
bother processing a policy.
--On Monday, June 11, 2001 4:51 PM +0200 David Partain
> This issue hasn't been appropriately aired, based upon what
> I see in the mail archive. I'm going to try to collect in a
> single message where we are. I hope those who will only read
> mail that fits in a vt100 will forgive the length of this.