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