Title: Message
All,
I am new to SNMP and
its workings, thus this may seem a very simple question with an obvious answer
to the majority of you.
But, how often, if
ever, should the counters in the InterfaceTable be reset? Are they
counters that should never be re-set or should they be
Title: Message
All,
I am new to SNMP and
its workings, thus this may seem a very simple question with an obvious answer
to the majority of you.
But, how often, if
ever, should the counters in the InterfaceTable be reset? Are they
counters that should never be re-set or should they be
Title: Message
Stuart,
First, this question is more suitable to the MIBs list in the
OPS area. Avoid copying all the IETF list for such issues in the future.
Specifically, I suggest that you look at section 4.6.1.2 for
recommendations on counters reset.
Regards,
Dan
-Original
Title: Message
I forgot to mention the document - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt.
-Original Message-From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: 01 October, 2003 12:00 PMTo: Brookes, Stuart P;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:04:51 +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) said:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt
Specifically, I suggest that you look at section 4.6.1.2 for
recommendations on counters reset.
Hopefully, that document isn't in violent
Hi.
I just had occasion to look again at RFC 2428, FTP Extensions
for IPv6 and NATs, M. Allman, S. Ostermann, C. Metz. September
1998, and to think about in the context of the recent
flame-war^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H discussions about use of IP
addresses in applications. 2428 provides additional
John,
The extensions in 2428 are in wide use, and they work just fine. I
don't see any reason to change them.
Nor do I believe there is consensus that applications should always be
passing names in preference to IP addresses. And until there is a
system for assigning stable names to hosts
--On Wednesday, 01 October, 2003 14:35 -0400 Keith Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
The extensions in 2428 are in wide use, and they work just
fine. I don't see any reason to change them.
Nor do I believe there is consensus that applications should
always be passing names in preference to
Keith, you are starting down the path I was hoping to avoid, so
maybe my specific concern and suggestion wasn't clear. If is is
working well as is, then I withdraw even the hint of deprecating
the thing.My main objection to 2428 is not that it _permits_
addresses, but that it
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
It seems appropriate to ask whether 2428 should be opened
and given at least the capability of passing DNS names
and maybe some syntax that would permit clean extension
to future identifiers.
It seems to me that this does not buy us much if it is limited to FTP.
--On Wednesday, 01 October, 2003 14:48 -0700 Michel Py
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
It seems appropriate to ask whether 2428 should be opened
and given at least the capability of passing DNS names
and maybe some syntax that would permit clean extension
to future
John;
I just had occasion to look again at RFC 2428, FTP Extensions
for IPv6 and NATs,
Please consider this a fairly narrow question.
I'm afraid that your question is still too broad.
Are you asking the question for IPv6 or for NATs?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I'm sure this has been raised before, and have done my fair share of
searching - I think - on the matter. Trouble is, I can't seem to
interpret RFC 2142 properly and reach a firm conclusion. I've seen
variations on the interpretation of
--On Thursday, 02 October, 2003 09:55 +0859 Masataka Ohta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John;
I just had occasion to look again at RFC 2428, FTP
Extensions for IPv6 and NATs,
Please consider this a fairly narrow question.
I'm afraid that your question is still too broad.
Are you asking the
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:08:22 BST, Sabahattin Gucukoglu [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Great. So, while I'm not prevented from inventing fab new mailboxes for
the same or even more services, business roles, etc., I'm at least
tentatively asked to support the listed mailboxes for services I run,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
I read it as saying We suggest you have aliases from section 3 for
appropriate business units, and the service-oriented ones from section
5 are mandatory if you run that service. So if you have a sales
division, a mailbox called 'sales' is suggested, but if you
Sabahattin,
SG Part of the abstract runs thus:
...
SG encouraged to support AT LEAST each mailbox name for
...
SG Then, part of the Rationale says:
SG However, if a given service is offerred, then the associated mailbox
SG name(es) must be supported, resulting in delivery to a recipient
SG
17 matches
Mail list logo
