RE: Begin WG Last Call: draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu-09

Hi Randy,

I've gone into more detail in a private message. 
Other factors raised about the mib module make my issue rather moot.
The WG should focus on those issues.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:55 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [RMONMIB] Begin WG Last Call: 
> draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu-09
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > From: "David B Harrington" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:18 AM
> > Subject: RE: [RMONMIB] Begin WG Last Call: 
> draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu-09
> ...
> > One of the concerns raised on the MIB Doctor's list was the issue
of
> > scalability if multi-varbind traps are sent to an SNMP engine in
> > realtime from a large number of devices. My personal experience is
> > that this may not be scalable. I have had personal experience with
a
> > deployment that tried to use realtime reporting of events 
> using SNMP,
> > and caused a leading SNMP NMS application capable of 
> managing tens of
> > thousands of devices to crash (i.e not being able to continue
> > operating effectively).
> ...
> 
> In fairness, if I recall your message to the other list 
> correctly, it must
> be mentioned that that NMS application did a fork() for each trap
> received.  I'm sure the implementors thought that that was a good
> idea at the time, but there is nothing in the SNMP protocol 
> or architecture
> that demands such an overhead-intensive approach.  I've worked with
> systems where the cost of handling an incoming notification was on
the
> same order as processing a response to a get-next request.
> 
> Randy
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RMONMIB mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmonmib
>