Re: snmpconf Comments on BCP-09

Hi -

> Message-Id: <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:23:13 -0700
> To: [email protected]
> From: Andy Bierman <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: snmpconf Comments on BCP-09
> Cc: "David T. Perkins" <[email protected]>
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> References: <[email protected]>
...
> This practice is problematic. The 128 sub-OID limit is an arbitrary
> rule that was added to SMIv2.  The SMIng WG is likely to change the
> limit to 256 sub-OIDs in SMIv3. (I think there should be no limit,
> or a limit of 65535 subOIDs!) It was placed there with the assumption=20
> that SNMP PDUs (over UDP) were <=3D 484 octets in length.  It was
> placed there without much forethought and before it was fashionable
> to use strings in an INDEX clause.
>=20
> The current practice of creating an arbitrary SIZE clause that allows
> for (128 - static_oid_length - 1) sub-OIDs is going to cause more
> problems over time than it solves.  There is absolutely no "protocol se=
nse"
> to the limit of 128.  When it changes to a larger number in the
> near future, all MIBs that artificially conform to this limit will be=20
> obsolete, and will need to be updated.=20
...

Don't forget that this CLR is also enshrined in RFC 1905, and
lives on in the update <draft-ietf-snmpv3-update-proto-08.txt>
It's not just an SMI CLR, it's also part of the protocol
specification.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email protected]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San Jos=E9, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------