Re: configuration: writable MIB modules versus NETCONF/YANGmodules

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> The important questions are:
> - will the writable aspects of the MIB module be implemented by the vendors
> (basically requested by the operators)?

Who knows if it would be implemented by the vendors, but I'm sure most
operators would refuse to use it.
As a test I just proposed enabling SNMP write and got some good
giggles (actually I got a "Good plan! Do  it with snmpv1, no one uses
that.", but I'm not really able to convey the sarcasm / mocking tone
in mail).

I know of no large operator / network that allows write access -- I
suspect that the risks are not really as bad as folk make out, but it
has become network lore that snmp write is bad mojo and once something
becomes lore...
Things may be different in the enterprise space (I think ciscoworks
tries to use snmp write). Oh, and Bay Network's Site Mangler used to
-- which is why most people used BCC...

W



> - will the writable aspects be used by the NMS'?
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Benoit Claise" <[email protected]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:39 AM
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You probably know that there is currently a consensus call in progress
>> over
>>
>> "Please indicate Support or Oppose for this MIB
>> (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib) to be read-only."
>>
>> and I was pleasantly surprised to see opposition, albeit with one
>> opponent later changing their mind (perhaps they were sat on from a
>> height:-).  I don't see much sign of Netxxxx in the mpls arena but there
>> is a need there for configuration, since there need not be a control
>> plane to set things up.  Perhaps writable MIB modules will still be with
>> us in the distant future in some corners of the Internet..
>>
>> Ideally, this idea would be fleshed out in an I-D.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>>> Regards, the MIB doctors & Benoit
>>
>> .
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area