| RE: HP openview:
We have no immediate plans for supporting (_directly_) any other NMS
platforms other than DEC MCC, MSU, and DSI (David Systems, DOS).
This does not mean that their application cannot manage the DECagent 90
et al. It depends on how flexible/configurable their snmp application
is. The first requirement is that they be able to compile our ASN.1
MIB. By formal announcement timeframe (externally), our MIB will be
available via the internet. This means public access; by vendor, or
end-user. The second requirement is that they be able to handle our
proxy method. This means that they must be able to support multiple
SNMP community names per a single IP address. Even if this means that
they store a 'standard' pair of community names ('public' and some
private string) per IP address, and allow the user to override these on
a per-SNMP-transaction basis. This is crude, but _will_ get the job
done, albeit clumsy and non-graphical. This would be equivalent to the
current (ie, _today_) level of support in the released MCC and MSU
products.
I can't speak for marketing, but, technically, if openview is based on
OSF/Motif (what the HUBwatch team chose for its environment over
X-windows), and they have some kind of 'callable SNMP' they way we're
getting it from MCC and MSU, then it would be _possible_ to port to
their platform. (Is HP/OV Motif-based?)
Of course, there are business implications to all this (which is
outside my area of expertise), but it would be possible.
[open_soapbox]
And, for an engineer's $.02 worth, I wish other vendors would start to
ship NMS's preconfigured with all the latest MIBS that are accessible
via the Internet. Even beyond that, I'd like to see some cooperation
between vendors to share graphical formats, point-and-click semantics,
etc. However, my research at the Interop show indicates that many
companies are still closed-minded to the "open thing" these days. They
only publish parts of their MIB, fearing that they'll lose a
competitive edge if _other_ management stations can manage their
hardware. Hey, some vendors aren't event convinced that its 'right' to
support SNMP at all! If they're pushing back on a 'simple' thing like
publishing their MIB _IN FULL_, then I wouldn't expect them to hand out
their graphics code. A few vendors are starting to catch on, but, in
general, most just haven't seen the light yet ...
[close_soapbox]
.bl
|