Re: configuration: writable MIB modules versus NETCONF/YANG modules

Hi,

 

If it is a small set of operational data that needs updating, and if you
want acknowledgement of the change at the receiver, then SNMP SET might meet
your needs, if the targeted environments support SNMP SET. If you only need
acknowledgement of the receipt of the update message, then SNMP Inform might
meet your needs. 

 

However, if this is updating routing information, then you might do better
to NOT use a layer 7 management protocol like Netconf or SNMP, but a routing
layer protocol to distribute such updates.

 

If you develop a custom protocol, then you are faced with getting that
protocol implemented and deployed before the solution can be useful. A
custom protocol might be a viable scenario for a solution that works only
within a single vendor’s ecosystem, but is likely to be problematic in a
heterogeneous network, until the protocol is supported across multiple
vendors’ products. You might want to rethink the problem to make it fit into
an existing implemented and deployed infrastructure, such as SNMP or Netconf
or standard routing protocols.

 

Without more information (and I am not requesting that you turn this thread
into a discussion of your proposal), it is hard to provide advice.

Why don’t you start a separate thread by posting a pointer to a relevant
internet-draft, and ask what would be appropriate for that use case?

 

David Harrington

 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

+1-603-828-1401

From: OPS-AREA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Balazs
Lengyel
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 9:34 AM
To: Benoit Claise; [email protected]
Cc: Attila Mihály
Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] configuration: writable MIB modules versus
NETCONF/YANG modules

 

Hello Benoit,
We have a use case that might end up in an IETF RFC, which involves updating
a small set of data very frequently (2 times/sec).
 It is kind of on the border of configuration and SDN/routing.
What would be a good protocol for this purpose? Is it still Netconf, or a
custom protocol?
regards Balazs

On 2014-02-14 01:39, Benoit Claise wrote:

Dear all,

We occasionally see read-write MIB module proposals within the IETF.
However, the write capabilities of those MIB modules are rarely implemented.

While discussing this issue with the MIB doctors, we arrive to the
conclusion that it's now time to set the direction for future MIB
developments within the IETF. Basically, let's not specify read-write MIB
modules unless we have a good reason. Read-only MIB modules are still fine
though, as SNMP is clearly used for monitoring purposes.

Here is the statement we came up with:

The OPS area recommends the use of NETCONF/YANG standards for configuration.
IETF working groups are therefore encouraged to use the NETCONF/YANG
standards for configuration, specifically in new charters. SNMP MIB modules
modifying persistent configuration state should only be produced by working
groups in cases of clear utility 
and consensus to use SNMP write operations for configuration.

Ideally, this should become an IESG statement.
Your feedback is most welcome.

Regards, the MIB doctors & Benoit






_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area





-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Tel: +36-1-437-7320
Mobile: +36-70-330-7909              email: [email protected]

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area