RE: [midcom] SNMPv3 as MIDCOM protocol: Opinions?

I think we need to define what we're talking about here.

SNMPv3 noAuthNoPriv shouldn't be any more expensive than any other
version, but obviously doesn't give you any increased security.

AuthNoPriv will be somewhat more expensive, but my experience (no, I
haven't benchmarked it) is that the cost is relatively low and is "good
enough" security for many environments.

AuthPriv will be the most expensive and I agree that, without
support for hardware encryption (and I don't know of anyone that has
implemented that--does anyone?) will be quite expensive.

It would be very interesting to benchmark the three on a representative
sample of equipment. I'd love to do this, but my current load, combined
with the conditions here now (no power at home or work, working off of
laptop battery and recharging in the car, and dialup access only, with no
schedule for power restoration yet) make it difficult to predict if I
could get to this anytime soon.

Chris.

On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> I don;t have the stats, but remembering the implementation I did
> a few years back, I see no problem with a number of transactions
> per minute. Many SETs per second might become problematic,
> depending on the complexity of the SETs and what a SET
> would cause in underlying work and such.
>
> Thanks,
> Bert
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harrington, David [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: vrijdag 6 december 2002 21:10
> > To: [email protected] (E-mail)
> > Subject: FW: [midcom] SNMPv3 as MIDCOM protocol: Opinions?
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does anybody have any stats regarding the processing power
> > required for SNMPv3?
> >
> > dbh
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Burger [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 10:48 AM
> > To: Martin Stiemerling
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [midcom] SNMPv3 as MIDCOM protocol: Opinions?
> >
> >
> > My bad feeling?  Performance.
> >
> > I can see SNMPv3 working for a residential or SOHO gateway,
> > where there will be a few transactions per day.
> >
> > I might be able to see SNMPv3 working for a small enterprise
> > gateway, where there will be a few transaction per hour.
> >
> > I can't imagine using SNMPv3 SETs for a large enterprise or
> > inter-service provider gateway, where there will be a number
> > of transactions per minute.  We've done the math, and you
> > need a LOT of processing power to support such a rate.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:24 AM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Subject: [midcom] SNMPv3 as MIDCOM protocol: Opinions?
> > >
> > >
> > > [please keep me in the recipient list, since I'm not subscribed to
> > > snmvp3 list]
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > as you may have heard: the MIDCOM WG is currently doing a protocol
> > > evaluation which protocol to use as the MIDCOM protocol. SNMPv3 is
> > > amongst these candidates (diameter, cops(-pr), megaco).
> > > Would you strongly recommend to use SNMPv3 as the MIDCOM protocol
> > > without having a bad feeling? Actually there are only a few
> > > pro and cons
> > > discussed so far.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > > Martin
> > _______________________________________________
> > midcom mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
> >
>

Chris Elliott  CCIE# 2013       |         |
Customer Diagnostic Engineer   |||       |||
RTP, NC, USA                  |||||     |||||
919-392-2146              .:|||||||||:|||||||||:.
[email protected]        c i s c o S y s t e m s