Management Requirements

Folks,

The BEHAVE WG brings us a concrete example of a problem that we discussed in Vancouver. According to their charter, the BEHAVE WG "creates documents to enable IPv4/IPv4 and IPv6/IPv4 NATs to function in as deterministic a fashion as possible." Also, according to their charter, the BEHAVE WG "will update the NAT MIB (RFC 4008) to be
consistent with the management aspects of its IPv6/IPv4 NAT solutions, and specify IPFIX information elements to meet logging requirements, reusing existing elements, if possible."

Now BEHAVE is asking whether SNMP and IPFIX are the right tools. Maybe NETCONF is the right tool for configuration? Maybe SNMP is right for fault monitoring? Maybe syslog is right for maintaining a record of address mappings? Who knows?

My best guess follows......

- The BEHAVE WG knows what information needs to be configured/monitored/preserved. They MUST specify that.
- The BEHAVE WG and the OPS Area have an equal stake in determining which tool is recommended to manage each type of data. They should work together to make a recommendation. In the best of all possible worlds, that decision would be informed by a well-documented guideline. However, in the world that we inhabit, that decision may need to be facilitated by a conversation.
- The BEHAVE WG MUST produce protocol-specific data models (SMI, YANG) for the recommended protocols
- The BEHAVE WG MAY produce protocol-specific data models (SMI, YANG) for the non-recommended protocols

Comments?

                                              Ron