Re: [f-nsp] Basic SNMP MIBs missing
Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.nsp.foundry |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAErPDfEitDvDxmLUYRHkV5by_VQTvJE2EN_J1Z+t4FF9nj4yiw@mail.gmail.com> |
Frank, I'm happy I'm not the only sharing this point of vue. I was beginning to think I was some kind of intolerant extremist. Well, hopefully Brocade will hear us and correct this. Maybe Wilbur can try to relay this internally ? I know I am pressing with my SE as much as I can. Best regards. 2017-03-13 15:25 GMT+01:00 Frank Bulk <[email protected]>: > Youssef, > > > > Thanks, that’s exactly my point – the hard work of extracting the data > from the optic has already been done, it’s just a matter of exposing it in > right MIB of the SNMP engine. > > > > Frank > > > > *From:* Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, March 13, 2017 1:21 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Wilbur Smith <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [f-nsp] Basic SNMP MIBs missing > > > > Dear Frank, > > > > Yes, it is. That's is why it's so frustrating ! > > > > Seems like someone decided it was a good idea to develop the capability > code half way through !?! > > > > Best regards. > > > > > Le 13 mars 2017 à 05:21, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Isn’t what’s being requested already available from the CLI? > > > > Frank > > > > *From:* foundry-nsp [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Wilbur Smith > *Sent:* Thursday, March 9, 2017 1:37 PM > *To:* Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [f-nsp] Basic SNMP MIBs missing > > > > Sorry you’re having issues with our MIB support. We try to support as many > MIB OIDs as possible on as many platforms, but the reality is additional > code needs to be written for every new OID. Optics can be specifically > challenging because there’s no standard RFC based MIB to pull some types of > data from the optic. I checked and this isn’t included in RFC-1213 > (MIB-II), RFC-1775 (RMON), RFC-4133 (Entity), > > > > Different optics manufacturers will also use different standards for > passing this information; this standard also needs to also be compatible > with the SERDES & chipset vendor’s own implementation. Sometimes supporting > this isn’t as clear cut as we would like it to be and can take time & > resources to build. We’re pretty good about supporting customer RFC’s > though and we’ve added a lot of OID values to Fastiron & VDX based on > customer requests, so we may add support for your request in a future > release. Disclaimer: I’m not a Program Manager and can’t give you any > insight into if/when. > > > > For VDX it does look like we support OID strings for portFault, noLight, > etc on Fiber Channel ports (see string 1.3.6.1.4.1.1588.2.1.1.1.6.2.1.3). > Because of the way VDX thinks of Ethernet & FC ports this OID may return > data for an Ethernet optic…worth a try. > > > > Wilbur > > > > > > > > *From:* foundry-nsp [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Youssef > Bengelloun-Zahr > *Sent:* Monday, February 27, 2017 2:26 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [f-nsp] Basic SNMP MIBs missing > > > > Dear Community, > > Just wanted to share a basic / silly / simple experience I have gone > through with our favorite $VENDOR. > > We use observium as an NMS for our backbone (MLXe / CERT, FCX,VDX) and I > recently noticed lack of support for basic SNMP MIBs, in particular ones > responsible for gathering transceivers' sensors values for FCX and VDX > switchs. > > After opening cases with BTAC, I was told that it was perfectly normal (in > 2017 !?!) because those specific MIBs were not implemented by design and > that if I needed them, I should open up RFE requests... which I did with > the help of my local SE : > > PRODRFE104332: regarding VDX implementation > PRODRFE104333: regarding FCX implementation > > > It has also made its' way on Observium's facebook page : > https://fr-fr.facebook.com/observium/ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__fr-2Dfr.facebook.com_observium_&d=DwMFaQ&c=IL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg&r=l86Fj-WC0GHHSCjQjuUvTzxOj0iW25AHL3VIC5Dog8o&m=NmkDsINSY69cmh7Wmt7rWUQIuizZDEShiAN3aMagP-w&s=F8o92HgaKWqbiq1otVLKuwG1cuP8DppUlUJ_giSHcvM&e=> > > So, if you do love your favorite $VENDOR as much as we do and consider > that your big bucks are worth having basic SNMP support in 2017, please > start harrassing your SEs in order for SNMP MIBs to be implemented. > > I hope this feedback will inspire you. > > Best regards. > > _______________________________________________ foundry-nsp mailing list [email protected] http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp