[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 
<David.Partain@ericsson.com> wrote:

> 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.