From: RJ Atkinson (rja@inet.org)
Date: 03/15/01-09:23:09 AM Z
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010315102111.00a10cd0@10.30.15.2>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:23:09 -0500
From: RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
Subject: Re: NFS MIB ideas
At 19:42 14/03/01, Venkat Rangan wrote:
>- Table of current locks and their owners
This has broad security implications and would make
me fairly nervous.
>1. Do we need to also handle v2 and v3 protocol implementations?
That would be kind.
>2. Do we need a separate MIB for RPC layer?
Yes. Different protocols/layers should be in
separate MIBs. For example, I might not be using NFS,
but might be using RPC and so examine the RPC MIB without
regards to NFS at all.
>3. How much configuration and operation-level objects do we need?
I'd be happiest with a monitoring MIB that is mostly
read-only. Other folks in the SNMP community take the opposite
approach.
>5. Does it make sense to have a MIB for the client side as well?
Yes.
Ran
rja@inet.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:48:38 AM Z CST