Conference azur::mcc

3906.0. "FDDI mgnt using SNMP clarification needs" by CHILKA::JAGGI () Thu Oct 15 1992 15:42

Few questions about someone who is trying to demonstrate that we may (or 
may not)manage our FDDI equipments using SNMP instead of our ELM AM. I have 
to demonstrate the manageability of FDDI using SNMP through CISCO routers. 
The customer is CERN.

The questions are the follows : 

- What are the differences in terms of attributs we may get/set compare 
  with our FDDI, BRIDGE, CONCENTRATOR AMs if any ?

- If differences, what are the consequences of these differences on the 
  manageability of these equipements. It's important to know explicitly
  what are going to be mainly impact if we choose SNMP to manage Concentrator
  or Bridge instead our private protocols.

  . My experience is : I have augmented the SNMP AM with :
	BRIDGE_STD_MIBDEF.TXT
	DEC_ELAN20_MIBDEF.TXT
	FDDI_STD_MIBDEF.TXT

  . Now looking into our private extension (DEC-EMA-fddi...) for
    a wiring concentrator or LanBridge600 seems very different of what we may 
    see using our own private management protocol on a FDDI station.
  . My understanding of the SNMP FDDI sub-entity was for FDDI MIB RFC 1285.
    When I try to get infos, all I receive is 'attribut is not gettable'
  . Therefore what are the differences between our FDDI_STD_MIBDEF
    and the FDDI definition we find in DEC_ELAN20_MIBDEF.TXT ?
  . When I query a LanBridge600 using BRIDGE MIB RFC 1286 none of the 
    attribut is gettable. Don't we support these RFCs into our equipments ?
    What am I doing wrong ?

- Would it be possible to comment for each equipement what extension file 
  we have to use ? What is possible to manage compare with our ELM AMs

- For example what are the differences between :
	BRIDGE_STD_MIBDEF.TXT and DEC_ELAN20_MIBDEF.TXT
	FDDI_STD_MIBDEF.TXT and DEC_ELAN20_MIBDEF.TXT
  in terms of functions/manageability

- Why are they so many differences between our FDDI extension and the one
  specify by the RFC 1285. It seems that there are much more definitions in 
  the IEFT definitions than in our private efddi extension.

- Can we really manage our FDDI equipment using SNMP protocol ?

- I would like also to share a comment that I have some times heard : why 
  do we have a different user interface to manage the same entity depending 
  the management protocol we choose ? Is it something unreasonnable to 
  expect a common user interface whatever management protocol we use.
  (compare ELM and SNMP).

Thanks to clarify my poor understanding of FDDI manageability using 
SNMP AM.

Regards
Michel


PS : Posted into MCC and and FDDI notes file.