On 06Dec2011, at 12.28, David Barak wrote:
From: Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz
Juniper does not support writing via SNMP. I am glad. Hopefully that
is the first step toward not supporting SNMP at all.
If I recall correctly, wasn't the old FORE CLI implemented via localhost
SNMP?
assumption that writable SNMP was a bad idea but have never actually
tried
it. I was curious what others were using, netconf or just scripted
logins.
I'm also fighting a losing battle to convince people that netconf isn't
evil. It strikes me as odd that if I wanted to talk
On 12/9/11 18:22 , Keegan Holley wrote:
assumption that writable SNMP was a bad idea but have never actually
tried
it. I was curious what others were using, netconf or just scripted
logins.
I'm also fighting a losing battle to convince people that netconf isn't
evil. It strikes me as odd
2011/12/9 Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
On 12/9/11 18:22 , Keegan Holley wrote:
assumption that writable SNMP was a bad idea but have never actually
tried
it. I was curious what others were using, netconf or just scripted
logins.
I'm also fighting a losing battle to convince
In lieu of a software upgrade, a workaround can be applied to certain IOS
releases by disabling the ILMI community or *ilmi view and applying an
access list to prevent unauthorized access to SNMP. Any affected system,
regardless of software release, may be protected by filtering SNMP
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Keegan Holley
keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote:
I can see the other comments about interactive commands and bulk
read/writes, but what's the harm of doing it on internet connected boxes
vs.
non-internet boxes. Just about everyone uses snmp reads in the
.
assumption that writable SNMP was a bad idea but have never actually tried
it. I was curious what others were using, netconf or just scripted logins.
I'm also fighting a losing battle to convince people that netconf isn't
evil. It strikes me as odd that if I wanted to talk to a database
For a few years now I been wondering why more networks do not use writable
SNMP. Most automation solutions actually script a login to the various
equipment. This comes with extra code for different vendors, different
prompts and any quirk that the developer is aware of and constant patches
On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Keegan Holley wrote:
For a few years now I been wondering why more networks do not use writable
SNMP. Most automation solutions actually script a login to the various
equipment. This comes with extra code for different vendors, different
prompts and any quirk
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Keegan Holley wrote:
For a few years now I been wondering why more networks do not use writable
SNMP. Most automation solutions actually script a login to the various
equipment
On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
long ago, in a network far away (not on the interwebs) we used snmp
write to trigger a tftp config load. It worked nicely... I'm fairly
certain I'd not do this on an internet connected network today though.
Many vendors have poor TFTP
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Jared Mauch wrote:
I recall some bay networks gear you could only program with the proper OID
as the cli was basically a SNMP-SET operation on the device.
The mere mention of Bay Networks and Site Manager (read: Site Mangler or
Site Damager) is enough to get my blood
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 12:15:35PM -0500, Mauch, Jared wrote:
Also, who tests snmp WRITE in their code? at scale? for daily
operations tasks? ... (didn't the snmp incident in 2002 teach us
something?)
There's no reason one can't program a device with SNMP, the main issue IMHO
There is
Yes, Site Mangler. Do not stir that nest. Thar be dragons.
-Blake
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:35, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.orgwrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Jared Mauch wrote:
I recall some bay networks gear you could only program with the proper OID
as the cli was basically a
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Keegan Holley
keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote:
For a few years now I been wondering why more networks do not use writable
SNMP. Most automation solutions actually script a login to the various
I've spent enough time writing code to deal with SNMP (our own stack
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Keegan Holley
keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote:
For a few years now I been wondering why more networks do not use writable
SNMP. Most automation solutions actually script a login to the various
...
Juniper does
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
long ago, in a network far away (not on the interwebs) we used snmp
write to trigger a tftp config load. It worked nicely... I'm fairly
certain I'd not do this on
wondering why more networks do not use
writable
SNMP. Most automation solutions actually script a login to the various
equipment. This comes with extra code for different vendors, different
prompts and any quirk that the developer is aware of and constant
patches
as new ones come up
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Dorian Kim dor...@blackrose.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 12:15:35PM -0500, Mauch, Jared wrote:
Also, who tests snmp WRITE in their code? at scale? for daily
operations tasks? ... (didn't the snmp incident in 2002 teach us
something?)
There's no
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Jethro R Binks
jethro.bi...@strath.ac.uk wrote:
So what are the alternatives these days then for automation or batch
operations?
clogin etc from shrubbery's rancid?
Net::Appliance::Session
netconf!
In a message written on Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:16:02AM -0500, Jared Mauch
wrote:
Anyone that has spent any quantity of time with ASN.1 generally would agree.
SNMP has two fatal flaws for large scale write based configuration.
ASN.1 was basically obsolete before it was written. It was
From: Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz
Juniper does not support writing via SNMP. I am glad. Hopefully that
is the first step toward not supporting SNMP at all.
If I recall correctly, wasn't the old FORE CLI implemented via localhost SNMP?
I liked using them, but that's a special case...
What SNMP does have for it is it is lightweight (to some extent) vs XML that
can get quite bulky, and certainly is the case when trying to do many
interfaces at once.
I have seen better precision with snmp vs cli interaction/tcp based
interaction.
snmpbulkwalk has been my cruel mistress for
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 14:18:52 EST, Jeff Wheeler said:
I've spent enough time writing code to deal with SNMP (our own stack,
not using Net-SNMP or friends) to have a more in-depth understanding
of SNMP's pitfalls than most people. It is TERRIBLE and should be
totally gutted and replaced with
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:07:44 -0500, Keegan Holley
keegan.hol...@sungard.com said:
KH Admittedly, you will have to deal with proprietary mibs and reformat
KH the data once it's returned.
That's the nail in the coffin of just about every configuration
protocol. Until multiple vendors implement
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 12:39:34 -0500, Dorian Kim dor...@blackrose.org said:
DK There is one good reason. Every vendor seem to assign a junior intern to
DK maintanining SNMP code, so you are interfacing with your router via a very
DK suspect interface.
The marking folks believed that when X
26 matches
Mail list logo
