Since the beginning I've always said that configuring the NAT with SNMP was out of scope.
The problem I see is not related to SNMP vs Yang, even though Yang might be a much better choice. The problem is that NAT implementations vary very much and their configuration even more so. It might be hard to find common functionality worth standardizing. Simon On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Tom Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > Given present policies regarding the respective roles of SNMP and Yang, is > it reasonable to say that the only configuration data that should be > present in the NAT MIB is data directly relating to the control or > interpretation of the remaining contents (i.e., the notifications, state > information, and statistics)? > > I can see a Yang module for NAT configuration in my possible future. > > Tom Taylor > > _______________________________________________ > Behave mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
