Subject: Re: LOG MIB implementations

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:22:44 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:43:59 -0800 (PST)
> From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
> To: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
> Subject: LOG MIB implementations
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
...
> Do you know any implementations of the LOG MIB?
...

None have been reported on the disman list, as far as
I know, and I HAVE asked on the list.

For that reason, the possibility of making *justified*
technical changes in the course of (radically) updating RFC
3014 doesn't bother me at all.  You might also check with Ram.
If anyone has implemented this, Cisco might have, perhaps
during Bob Stewart's tenure there.

Waiting for more implementation feedback on RFC 3014 before
considering fixes / enhancements / alternatives is not
a productive activity, in my opinion.  Waiting another 13
months for the IESG to decide whether to declare it "historic"
is also not productive, in my opinion.

If anyone has a concrete proposal, please do post it to
the disman list.  I'm afraid that comparative analyses
of performance and ease of use will have to be grounded in
theory, given the lack of implementations.   I'd welcome some
substantive discussion of what the update to RFC 3014 might
look like.

BTW, the David Harrington's post to the SNMPv3 list
today reminded me why we have both nlmLogEngineID and
nlmLogContextEngineID.  It's for the case where notifications
have been received via proxy, and the msgAuthoritativeEngineID
could be different from the contextEngineID.  For notifications
that did not come via proxy, the two would be equal.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Ram Kavasseri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:12:48 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:23 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: LOG MIB implementations
> 
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > Message-ID: 
> <[email-masked]>
> ...

Cisco has an implementation of the NOTIFICATION-LOG-MIB from
rfc3014. One customer - ATT - has specifically asked for this MIB
implementation.

I'm currently checking to see if they already have this
MIB deployed in their production network.

I know that our initial release supports logging to the default
log only. I'm in the process of collecting a list of implemented
objects for the Log MIB (as well as the expression and event MIBs)
so I can report it back to the disman wg.

I do not know when named logs will be supported.

Give me a few days, and I'll try and get additional implementation
feedback on these three MIBs to the disman wg.

> during Bob Stewart's tenure there.

As I said earlier, we finished an impelementation of rfc3014
earlier this year. One customer has made a firm request to have this
MIB implementation. I'd like to hear from the customer
as to what the MIB lacks, and if we're significantly on the
right (or wrong) track before attempting significant changes
to the MIB.

Ram

>  Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San Josi, California 95131  USA