Conference azur::mcc

>    We know that we've got DECmcc and an impressive list of SVP's
>    developing an access-module, but i also heared that OpenView provides
>    something like a 3rd party toolkit ?!

    Big deal.  So do we.  Guess we need to emphasize this a bit more.
    
>    Can somebody clarify/explain that ?
>    If that is true in the same sense than our toolkit is offering, we have
>    to be more specific:
>    
>    "What is the development/integrating effort like ?"

    The effort required, of course depends on the type of entity
    (application or device) that your trying to manage via DECmcc.  I won't
    attempt to quantify it any more than that, except to say this: We have
    found that there needs to be *substantially* greater emphasis placed on
    DESIGNing the "stuff" to be managed, keeping the rules of the Entity
    Model in mind.    If that is done right, the coding itself is pretty
    much cookbook, since the APIs are all very well-defined (ref SRM).
    Anyway, Digital provides such a wonderful CASE environment, the code
    almost writes itself   ;^).

>    "Are there functional restrictions ?"

    I'm not sure what this means.   The major functional restriction is
    obeying the Entity Model and following the "good neighbor policies"
    outlined in the SRM.

>    "Is it actively supported (are there developer trainings) ?"
>    etc.

    We are providing extensive training (classroom, labs, 1x1 support) with
    our strategic third party vendors.  The training, dubbed "MCC College"
    by our group, has been consistently well-received, based on the written
    and verbal feedback we have solicited as part of each training session.  
    A training program is currently being developed (modeled after the
    curiculum in "MCC College") that will be used by Ed Services and
    presumably open to the 'unwashed masses' (e.g. anyone: not just the 3rd
    parties we have selected to do business with).

    Hope this helps.  If you have any more specific questions about the
    toolkit, seek out Daryl Black.  He is the PL for the DECmcc Toolkit.

    regards, 

    /doug 
    (DECmcc SVP Engineering Support Grunt) 

    Re. .1:
    
    OK, Thanks, that was the DECmcc answer. But what about the HP/Openview 
    answer to that kind of questions ? Do we have an idea ?
    
    Tks.

    Daniel,
    
    This information is waht I gathered from customer's remarks  and from
    reading the press + attending a presentation by HP, so I DO NOT
    guarantee the content 100%.
    
    As far as the "marketing" part of the presentation is concerned, we
    could use their slides if we just change the logo at the bottom.
    
    When it comes to products, HP have so far implemented more or less the
    equivalent of MSU, i.e. TCP/IP management based on SNMP. There is some
    provision for integrating other equipements, but it is not dictionary /
    data driven like DECmcc. Basically, their equivalent of Access modules
    will provide primitives to manage "things" but there are no generic
    value-added modules like our Historian or Alarms FM.
    
    I have the case of several potential partners who are in the process of
    evaluating both DECmcc and Openviews as possible platforms. When it
    comes to presentation, all 3 customers I met asked me what tools we
    provide to design the forms which present the information at PM level,
    they were very surprised to hear that the PM builds them from the
    dictionnary and the parse tables. I believe that is when they began the
    understand the power of the object oriented approach.
    
    HP claim that OpenView is Object oriented, standards based and
    completely open. Well the architecture may be, but the products.....
    If you push them a bit further, they in fact tell you that OpenView
    will integrate CMIP/CMIS (but remember there are not standard objects
    today) and that they will fully follow the OSI/NMF. 
    
    My personal feeling is that next releases of Openview will in fact
    include CMIP/CMIS and NMF-defined objects, but that we are about 2
    years ahead of them when it comes to implementing an object-oriented
    approach which works with all sorts of protocols. Let's make the most
    of it.
    
    One final point which may work against them : we know for a fact that
    HP have NO specialists trained on OpenvView in France today and that
    software houses / equipment builded work directly with Palo Alto. I
    don't know about other European countries, but customers like the idea
    that someone with the knowledge is available locally to support them. 
    
    I hope this helps. I also suggest you get in touch with Linday Saytes
    who has done a remarkable job of comparing EMA with UNMA, NetView, and
    OpenView.
    
    Amicalement,
    
    Philippe.

	Recently I  have  heard some things about OpenView that I would
	like to have confirmed or denied.

	I heard that  OpenView  was  a  port  from  MS-DOS to Unix.  By
	itself there isn't any  problems with this, I'm just curious if
	it is true or not.

	Also, I've heard some some  very  limited  restrictions  on the
	number of SNMP hosts OpenView can manage and how many levels of
	Domains a user can go down.   Has  anybody  got  a feel for how
	many hosts and how many levels?

	Thanks, JCE

    Some ordering tips:
    HP (as we do) publishs some brochures and data sheets, you can get them
    for free or some for money, so why not ordering them officially:
    
    Title                                             Order-#
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    HP OpenView Network Management Architecture       5952-1414
    HP OpenView Windows Developer's Kit               5952-1409
    HP OpenView Network Management Server             5952-1412
    HP OpenView Network Node Manager                  5952-3363
    
    HP OpenView Network Management Server Technical
                    Evaluation Guide                  5952-1125

    I was told by a customer (read: no guarantee) that HP
    OpenView supports only 32 domains (or whatever they call
    them) in a maximum of three levels of hierarchy, and is
    therefore not suited for large networks.

    *Robert