RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-midcom-mib-01.txt

I agree, just haven't seen many implementations of SNMP proxies. Is
anyone aware of any generally available SNMPv3 proxies?

  _____  

Christopher A. Martin
P.O. Box 1264
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104
  _____  


	DOMAINS.SIP1.COM 	
Select your option below by clicking on the icon.
RegisterForwardDomainAlert MonitoringWeb HostingSite BuilderEmailTraffic
Blazer & Quick SizzleSSLInternet UtilitiesCopyright 	


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 3:25 PM
To: Christopher A. Martin
Cc: 'Melinda Shore'; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [midcom] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-midcom-mib-01.txt

On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:39:16PM -0500, Christopher A. Martin wrote:
 
> Just a thought...SNMP has always been the sore spot when it comes to
> managing devices behind a nat. Before snmp v3 I would never have asked
> rfor such functionality, but now...

See RFC 2962 for a discussion why the proper way to handle NATs is
the usage of SNMPv3 proxies. Note: I am not saying it is easy - just
that it is possible. ;-)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen,
Germany

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom