> Is there a common, typical, or expected organization of the objects
> in an enterprise MIB?
As a third example, the overall framework I set out for the Net-SNMP
subtree is basically defined in NET-SNMP-MIB. This lays out
separate subtrees for:
- real management objects (NET-SNMP-*-MIB)
- example management objects (NET-SNMP-EXAMPLES-MIB)
- "enumerations" (i.e. lists of named OIDs)
- notifications (including notification-only objects)
- conformance definitions
So that's probably closer to your second arrangement, with
'netSnmpObjects' playing the role of your 'devices' object.
Within that subtree, the next level is relatively "flat",
with the groups being divided between the various MIB files
by overall-functional-area, but all being at the same level.
I didn't define separate subtrees for "agent-related" or
"system-related" information.
The one file that is doesn't fit neatly into this model is
NET-SNMP-EXAMPLES-MIB. This has taken a somewhat different
approach, with everything (including the MODULE-IDENTITY and
notification entries) being defined directly under the
'netSnmpExamples' subtree, rather than using the relevant
portions of the wider framework.
That works equally as well - it's just a slightly different
approach.
There's no One Right Way to do this.
Choose something that makes sense to you, and stick to it.
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by The 2004 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Learn from the experts at JavaOne(SM), Sun's Worldwide Java Developer
Conference, June 28 - July 1 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, CA
REGISTER AND SAVE! http://java.sun.com/javaone/sf Priority Code NWMGYKND
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
