On Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2009, Olle E. Johansson wrote: > >> I still want to have a discussion about the last part above - why > >> are we not using the standard SIP mib where we can? > > > > Well, I think we should use the standard SIP mibs where they are > > available. > > Anyone else in the developer community with any insights/opinions?
Hi Olle, i also think that using the existing standard SIP mibs would be better then this custom tree. > >> Also, maybe we should reorganize the mib so that we suballocate for > >> future use outside of snmp > >> > >> kamailiooid.10 SNMP > >> kamailiooid.20 LDAP > >> > >> Right now I believe we're using the full OID directly for snmp > >> subclasses. > >> > >> Anyone that has experience of organizing OID trees that can give > >> some input? > >> > >> We can't change it in every release, as we will propably break > >> existing scripts and management platforms, so we will have to try > >> to do it right while we're messing with it :-) > > > > OK, but since I haven't been using it heavily, I cannot say how is > > better to have the OID trees. Therefore I can help a bit more with > > messing that with doing it right from first time :-) . > > My thinking is that we might at some point end up having to specify > our own LDAP schemas. Having a nicely build OID tree makes it more > simple to handle this, since LDAP schemas use OIDs as identifiers as > well. I guess that other developers can come up other protocols that > use OIDs too :-) > > Any more input from the rest of the crowd before I move ahead and > start messing with this? I did not used snmp that much, and even less ldap, so i can't really judge on this question, sorry. ;) Henning
_______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
