Re: About Agent-Manager implementation.

At 1/7/2003:04:02 PM, parasuraman wrote:

Hi,

>If B acts as both the Agent as well as the Manager, then does it listen
>on two different ports or the same port ?

Not necessarily.  In practice, however, it would probably be
best to have the Manager role use a port other than UDP/161 for
out-going requests and then naturally it would be listening
on that other port (or ports) for responses from C.  This
would also facilitate its agent role in listening for requests
from A on UDP/161.  Additionally, if part of B's manager role
is to listen for traps, then it almost surely want to do that
on UDP/162 (although notifications can be configured for any
target port).

>my assumption about this question is as follows:
>It can run anyway and it is implementation specific. That is,
>the Command Generator and Command responder applications can
>share a same dispatcher or a different one.

See Randy's response.

>Is my assumption correct or wrong ? Please clarify me.

Yes, your assumption is correct and the shared alternative
applies not only to CG and CR functionality, but to all
five types defined in RFC3413.  Additionally, as Randy
emphasized, the potential benefits of a shared security
environment (especially for SNMPv3) among the functional
modules may favor the shared approach.  However, for any
specific set of application requirements, you would have
to carefully consider the trade-offs.

>Note:
>Please assume that the agent may be of any SNMP version.

Yes, and all of the above applies to any SNMP version (or
any mix of SNMP version support).  The possibility of
multiple SNMP roles within a single app has always existed
in all version of SNMP.  We just spelled it out in v3.

>Thanks in advance for your time and effort.

You're welcome...good luck.

Cheers,

BobN