| Title: | FDDI - The Next Generation |
| Moderator: | NETCAD::STEFANI |
| Created: | Thu Apr 27 1989 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Jun 05 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 2259 |
| Total number of notes: | 8590 |
Apologies if this has been asked before. Crose posted to MOUSE::FDDI and
MOLAR::NETMGT.
I just would like to know SMT versions interoperability and behavour of
management tools as followed.
The new DECbridge firmware V1.3 is ready and includes support for SMT
V7.2 spec. There may be a following case at some point in an upgrade
phase:
+--------+ +----------+
===========|DBxxx |=========| DAS with |=============
|SMT V7.2| | SMT V6.2 |
|&Gateway| | |
+--------+ +----------+
|
|
| +-------+
|---|Mgmt | ELM of POLYCENTER 300 (aka MSU)
| |Station| ELM with POLYCENTER 200/400
+-------+ (aka DECmcc/BMS/EMS)
Questions:
1) Can the two SMT versions interact with each other?
2) Can the bridge (or gateway) with the new SMT handle RBMS protocols
of ELM into/from the ring so that ELM will not be confused?
3) Is there a SNMP MIB supports for the new SMT?
Thanks,
_Tak
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 942.1 | QUIVER::STEFANI | Elvis is my psychic advisor | Mon Apr 26 1993 10:34 | 7 | |
>> 3) Is there a SNMP MIB supports for the new SMT?
No. The IETF FDDI MIB working group has a draft MIB that contains
SMT 7.X MIB objects, but no formal RFC exists. The draft MIB is
available over the Internet, but I don't know the address off hand.
- Larry
| |||||
| 942.2 | SMT old and new | QUIVER::PARISEAU | Luc Pariseau | Tue Apr 27 1993 12:32 | 10 |
reply 1-) Yes. reply 2-) I believe there are problems with ELMs and SMT 7.3. My understanding is that ELMs is no longer supported so I don't expect this behavior to change. reply 3-) Larry is right. No RFC yet for SMT 7.3 (note SMT 7.2 and 7.3 are the same except for editorial changes.) | |||||
| 942.3 | TKTVFS::NEMOTO | back to the drawing board.. | Wed Apr 28 1993 05:24 | 14 | |
Re: all Thank you so much for the replies. That's indeed helpful. RFC#1285 MIB can still be used for V3.1 with consideration on some implemetation differences until the RFC will be updated. Or the DEC vendor MIB. Right? As to the ELM part, I posted a topic to MOLAR::MSU(#584) and NOTED::MCC(#4962) since they are different tools.. Thanks, _Tak | |||||