I don't know if you're speaking specifically about the ASR 9902 or all routers 
but I can tell you that after doing this for 26 years I've never seen another 
router handle SNMP responses differently depending on what interface the 
request comes in on. I can name 8 vendors and even models from Cisco that don't 
do this. So I'm not sure this is standard practice as you seem to be implying.

Thanks,
-Drew


-----Original Message-----
From: Mel Beckman <[email protected]> 
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2025 9:43 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Drew Weaver <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cisco ASR9902 SNMP polling ... is interesting

Also, non-management interfaces do packet processing in silicon at the ASIC 
level and don’t have the capacity to do anything more than statistical sampling 
of packets that require CPU-level processing to retrieve counters and generate 
SNMP responses. 62 % is as good a sampling rate as any other.

 -mel

> On Aug 1, 2025, at 6:38 AM, Mel Beckman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> How often are you polling the interfaces? SNMP was never meant for high 
> frequency polling (e.g., once per second), yet I often see people using SNMP 
> as if it were a SCADA service, which is used in industrial automation for 
> high frequency supervisory control and data acquisition. SNMP probes are 
> typically anticipated by device designers to occur at 30 second or 60 second 
> intervals.
> 
> -mel
> 
>> On Aug 1, 2025, at 6:10 AM, Drew Weaver via NANOG <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> We purchased an ASR9902 I think almost 2 years ago now intending to replace 
>> 4 routers with them.
>> 
>> We had a history of lets just say design decision quirks with the router 
>> that prevented us from deploying it until recently.
>> 
>> Then when we finally were able to implement it we've noticed something 
>> strange about how SNMP polling works in the router.
>> 
>> If we poll SNMP on any interface that isn't one of the built in management 
>> ethernet interfaces the response takes 8x-16x longer to respond and exactly 
>> 62% of the polls time out.
>> 
>> If we poll SNMP on the built-in MGMT interfaces the responses are still 
>> slower than the ASR9001s that we used to use but they don't seem to time out.
>> 
>> I've had a TAC case with Cisco open over this for weeks now and they are now 
>> saying that the slow responses and the 62% poll timeouts are intentional and 
>> that they don't see any problem with the design.
>> 
>> I understand the security implications of having control plane stuff 
>> responding on all interfaces but the part I don't understand is why bind the 
>> SNMP daemon to the non MGMT* interfaces at all if they are making a moral or 
>> ethical decision to not allow SNMP to work on non MGMT interfaces. Shouldn't 
>> it just not work at all then? Who came up with 62% timeout as the right 
>> number?
>> 
>> The larger implication is that I still can't find another router from 
>> another vendor that does this.
>> 
>> Has anyone else run into this or did you guys all avoid the ASR 9902 like we 
>> should have?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Drew
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NANOG mailing list
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.nanog.org_archives_list_nanog-40lists.nanog.org_message_HUP4BJYN3E7YQZKMDT6PLM3XBTK7DCJU_&d=DwIGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw&m=Q2RyEqHfEgQ-X2KzSAl-_cydxhA0rlcApGAdZvdw5ve2NIJN86F-3a_rxvmBGX7G&s=tdz6udW6pvsXVnz3KKbQDKNwyYe3cjFT3ZOBcvyuiYo&e=
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.nanog.org_archives_list_nanog-40lists.nanog.org_message_YFBCZDFSLVW6PY3LDSNAKM773KOGPVG6_&d=DwIGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw&m=Q2RyEqHfEgQ-X2KzSAl-_cydxhA0rlcApGAdZvdw5ve2NIJN86F-3a_rxvmBGX7G&s=mV8VmIv4t-mt4QNXMHhkuE3mkNkA8Fn-JsviKeeFe9Q&e=
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/OEOY5K7FWW5XILLTM2WRS2TYFJSQXMZ3/

Reply via email to