On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:59:12PM +0200, Thomas Narten wrote: > Thanks for bringing up this topic! > > > OLD > > > Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 > > nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only > > possible way of controlling these nodes. > > > NEW > > > IPv6 nodes may support network management via the Simple Network > > Management Protocol version 3 (SNMPv3) [RFC3411]. For IPv6 nodes > > that are embedded devices, network management via SNMPv3 may be the > > only possible way of controlling these nodes. > > > Rationale: > > > I think it is important to provide a explicit references to SNMPv3 > > to make it clear that SNMPv3 is the SNMP version to be > > implemented. > > I'm fine with the reference to SNMPv3. > > But, is that last sentence really accurate? Are embedded devices > typically or normally managed via SNMP? > > And is there even a generally accepted definition of what an embedded > device is? Is it the same as, say, a network appliance?
The sentence in question was there before - I just removed the 'However'. Since the sentence neither uses 'typically' nor 'normally', I am not sure I understand your first question. If your proposal behind your questions is to remove the sentence, I would not object. > > OLD > > > IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that > > support an SNMP agent. > > > NEW > > > The IP-FORWARD-MIB module [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that > > support an SNMP agent. > > > Rationale > > > I believe it is clearer to list the MIB module name instead of a > > paraphrase of the respective RFC title. > > Agreed. > > But thinking a bit, should we even go so far as saying SHOULD for the > two above MIBs when SNMP is implemented? Two? You include the IP-MIB in the following comment as well? > The reason I ask is that a year or two ago, when I looked into the > question of what MIBs to implement for hosts, my conclusion was that > MIBs aren't really used in the host/server space much. They are > clearly used for monitoring (but not necessarily configuration) in > routers. > > I guess I'm asking should we give the same recomendation for all > devices, or should the recommendation for routers be different from > that of hosts? The question is whether we expect network management applications to look at IP forwarding tables of hosts or not. I do not have a good answer for this. The ipForwardReadOnlyCompliance allows read-only implementations so monitoring vs. configuration is not an issue I think. We could even be more explicit and state that explicitly by refering to the compliance statement. I believe the IP-MIB with read-only compliance SHOULD be on every node that can afford it. On not resource constrained systems, I do not recall having seen an SNMP agent that does not implement the old IP-MIB plus the old IP-FORWARDING-MIB. My feeling is that if IPv4 nodes support SNMP, they do support the basic MIB modules we have. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
