Subject: [Isms] snmpwalk, snmpget and notifications

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:01:57 -0400

I want to try and explain the comment I made at the microphone today regarding Juergen's presentation on notifications.

The assumption is that you can use an existing session from a command
generator to a command responder for the entity previously acting as a
command responder to send a notification back to the command
generator.

That means that if I use a command like snmpget to open up an ssh
session to send a command then I need to be prepared to receive and
deal with a notification on that session.

I think that's a change from how SNMP works today.

That is an acceptable change if the WG decides it is acceptable and
properly documents it.

--Sam

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:48:51 -0700

>>>>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:01:57 -0400, Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> said:

Sam> That means that if I use a command like snmpget to open up an ssh
Sam> session to send a command then I need to be prepared to receive and
Sam> deal with a notification on that session.

Unless such notifications aren't sent unless a "signal" is passed to
turn them on.

Sam> I think that's a change from how SNMP works today.

Unless a signal is passed, in which case I think it wouldn't cause
problems.

Actually, based on the way snmp clients are supposed to be built it
based on the protocol specs it shouldn't be a problem anyway.
Specifically, a snmp stack is already expected to discard unexpected
messages.

But a signaling mechanism would be far Superior and is needed, IMHO.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:42:25 -0400

>>>>> "Wes" == Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]> writes:

    Wes> Actually, based on the way snmp clients are supposed to be
    Wes> built it based on the protocol specs it shouldn't be a
    Wes> problem anyway.  Specifically, a snmp stack is already

The client may well discard the message.  The issue is that the
message then doesn't get to the manager, which is bad.