Re: ISMS working group

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Sep 7, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

The call home solution doesn't help with the problem of the _manager_ being behind a NAT. It only applies to situations where the manager is at a fixed location on a globally-addressable network and the managed device is behind a NAT or firewall.

Thanks, Margaret. I know that some think CH is good and some think it isn't, etc. I'm not taking a stand on that, I'm just saying that the standard needs to *handle* these cases. I actually have no horse in that race; I'm sitting at the "deliver SNMP solutions for our products to the customer" end of the world, and I want the standard -- whatever it is -- to work in these cases. If CH is a partial solution that needs augmenting with another approach, itself also incomplete, fine. If the best that can be done, no matter what protocol is defined, is to handle the case you describe, well, nobody can do the theoretically impossible and it will have to do. At least it's an important case in this world, and better to include it than not.

But honestly, I didn't mention Call Home or any other approach in my letter. I'm implementation-neutral on the subject. I'm solution- centric -- I want the problems addressed so they are solved.

        Ken

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]