And the worst thing, If someone think _SNMP IS SUITABLE PROTOCOL_ he is wrong. In case of CISCO (as an example) we was caused to use boths 'SNMP' and 'rsh show ....' methods to get appropriate information. I think those who developed SNMP was the childs of the hell (it's terrible example of _how you should not develop protocols_; for example, compare 'rsh -t 120 -l monitor "show ip route"' request and requesting ip route table by SNMP; compare 'sh interface Serial0' and SNMP (10 - 20 different MIB tables with the very euristic INDEXES), try to ask _how much BGP router does router have_ or _how mach packets was received by ISL sublink_ etc etc. If someone answer _that's because of CISCO don't like SNMP_ I can't agree - no, thet's because SNMP is wrong protocol at all. Such protocol should be: - ascii text based; - with domain-like names, with the asterisk; - based on reliable UDP and/or TCP; - use something like MD5 checksumming for the simple protection. For example, I'd like to ask 'BASE 'router' GET interface Serial* ' and get ORIGIN router.interface.Serial1 in-packets: 223334 u32 in-errors: 1122 u23 in-bytes: 124563874 u64 .... ORIGIN router.interface.Serial2 .... (1) TEXT mode, no terrible binary octets, etc etc; (2) SIMPLE variables, withouth terrible MIB descriptions (they are not usefull here); (3) Another hierarchy (interface.variable, not variable.index) (4) simple addition private variables CISCO.in-bad-frames: 223344 instead of (as now) vendor.cisco.mgrt....interface.lapsha-na-palochke.INDEX etc etc... And then, if the protocol (SNMP) is BAD, don't think the tools for this protocol should be GOOD. // And compare this with the WEB interface implemented into some new routers and switches - simple, robust, can be used easily, and 100 times more flexible. Through it's only simple interfaces with the operator, not for the tools, for now. Alex. On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Scott Call wrote:
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:51:33 -0700 From: Scott Call <scall@devolution.com> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: HP Openview Slowness.
"Alex P. Rudnev" wrote:
If you begin to use commercial soft after free one, then: - don't drop free soft, ypu'll use it anyway;
I know :) I'm doing HPOV because the 'suits' want a pretty network map on a projector somewhere. MRTG/etc will still be very present in the system :)
- increase memory, CPU and disk up to 2 - 4 times (if you had 64RAM, install 512);
Noted, thanks.
- be ready to be disappointed;
:)
Through HP OV is not bad piece of software.
It's not, but I am disappointed it's not more router-centric. I appreciate the need to monitor workstations, but I've got multitudes more network devices that workstations/servers.
Thanks for all the responses everyone. -scott
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Scott Call |"How could this be a problem in a country where | |Router Geek | we have Intel and Microsoft"-AlGore on y2 k | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)