I was hoping some folks more intimate with SNMP and IETF management
frameworks would chime in here, but I'll respond to clarify:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Marcus wrote:
I am not an expert on SNMP, but the only way I could imagine that
working, would be by using queries for MIBs which would look like
this:
get <MIB>.<querytype>
As the query type can be a relay id, link-address or remote id, this
would look a bit strange to me. I know and use SNMP mostly for
querying specific, predefined counters or tables, not variable entries
in the MIB tree.
If I understand what you want to achieve, what you want is supported
and indeed used by lots of MIB modules out there. This is useful and
indeed we use it regularly with e.g. BGP and IP forwarding MIBs:
$ snmpwalk -m IP-FORWARD-MIB -v 2c -c foo foo-rtr ip.ipForward.ipCidrRouteTable.ipCidrRouteEntry.ipCidrRouteProto.128.214.46
IP-FORWARD-MIB::ipCidrRouteProto.128.214.46.0.255.255.255.0.0.0.0.0.0 = INTEGER: netmgmt(3)
IP-FORWARD-MIB::ipCidrRouteProto.128.214.46.254.255.255.255.255.0.0.0.0.0 = INTEGER: local(2)
Also all implementations I know, use UDP not TCP for SNMP queries
and replies. The DHCPv6 Bulk Leasquery proposal looks like a logical
next step to me.
An open-source SNMP implementation (net-snmp) is at least available.
SNMP over TCP is defined in RFC3430. The systems under consideration
already support TCP, just the TCP SNMP server part is missing; this
should be trivial to implement if there is a need -- the lack of
implementation efforts seems like an indication that UDP with
retransmissions is usually "good enough".
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf