RE: Where we stand/SNMPv3
"Cedric Aoun" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.midcom,gmane.ietf.snmpv3 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <C76021BAF2A6D5119DE500508BCF455203BF16DB@zctfc004.europe.nortel.com> |
"As things currently stand the two concerns raised regarding using SNMPv3 as the midcom protocol are 1) lack of interface to a keying infrastructure, and 2) questions about transaction rate. The first is clearly addressable and the second, I think, remains an open question. We don't have a show-stopper. " There is something else that people may want to understand is why the IETF is moving towards XML and leaving SNMP?Is this another protocol clone war? or there are real technical arguments for that? I'm trying to find an answer to this and appreciate any feedback from the list. Our problem is that the evaluated protocols meet the job, every protocol has its own way of doing the job. The main differences that we can list are relevant to performance (they have more or less the same amount of overhead) this what makes people really about especially that MIDCOM has real time applications. The first thing that comes to mind when looking at SNMP is its lack of in built transactional capability, it is up to the data objects carried by SNMP to achieve this transactional behavior (by looking at some reference number defined in the object format). How do people feel about that? Then we need to look at the atomicity issues that were addressed (by Juerguen and others) on the mailing list but didn't see any responses. Until we have cleared our minds on SNMP performance everybody will still have doubts and no real consensus will be reached, we should go and work on the MIB and then decide. We need to consider as well the applicability of the WG's delivery, will the low end Middlebox CPE vendors use it? SNMPv3 and the other evaluated protocols are more complex than all the protocols they are already running. I expect that they will go and use upnp (a lot of them already do that even with the known security flaws that were announced). Perhaps 2 protocols should be used in the internet depending on the market fit (please note that I'm not implying that we bring upnp to IETF and improve it). Cedric