[SNMP] Re: HP Openview Slowness.
Alex P. Rudnev
alex at Relcom.EU.net
Thu Jun 10 10:28:43 UTC 1999
And the worst thing, If someone think _SNMP IS SUITABLE PROTOCOL_ he is
wrong. In case of CISCO (as an example) we was caused to use boths 'SNMP'
and 'rsh show ....' methods to get appropriate information. I think
those who developed SNMP was the childs of the hell (it's terrible
example of _how you should not develop protocols_; for example, compare
'rsh -t 120 -l monitor "show ip route"'
request and requesting ip route table by SNMP; compare 'sh interface
Serial0' and SNMP (10 - 20 different MIB tables with the very euristic
INDEXES), try to ask _how much BGP router does router have_ or _how mach
packets was received by ISL sublink_ etc etc. If someone answer _that's
because of CISCO don't like SNMP_ I can't agree - no, thet's because SNMP
is wrong protocol at all.
Such protocol should be:
- ascii text based;
- with domain-like names, with the asterisk;
- based on reliable UDP and/or TCP;
- use something like MD5 checksumming for the simple protection.
For example, I'd like to ask
'BASE 'router'
GET interface Serial*
'
and get
ORIGIN router.interface.Serial1
in-packets: 223334 u32
in-errors: 1122 u23
in-bytes: 124563874 u64
....
ORIGIN router.interface.Serial2
....
(1) TEXT mode, no terrible binary octets, etc etc;
(2) SIMPLE variables, withouth terrible MIB descriptions (they are not
usefull here);
(3) Another hierarchy (interface.variable, not variable.index)
(4) simple addition private variables
CISCO.in-bad-frames: 223344
instead of (as now)
vendor.cisco.mgrt....interface.lapsha-na-palochke.INDEX
etc etc...
And then, if the protocol (SNMP) is BAD, don't think the tools for this
protocol should be GOOD.
// And compare this with the WEB interface implemented into some new
routers and switches - simple, robust, can be used easily, and 100 times
more flexible. Through it's only simple interfaces with the operator, not
for the tools, for now.
Alex.
On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Scott Call wrote:
> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:51:33 -0700
> From: Scott Call <scall at devolution.com>
> To: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: HP Openview Slowness.
>
>
> "Alex P. Rudnev" wrote:
>
> > If you begin to use commercial soft after free one, then:
> > - don't drop free soft, ypu'll use it anyway;
>
> I know :) I'm doing HPOV because the 'suits' want a pretty network map on a projector
> somewhere. MRTG/etc will still be very present in the system :)
>
> > - increase memory, CPU and disk up to 2 - 4 times (if you had 64RAM,
> > install 512);
>
> Noted, thanks.
>
> > - be ready to be disappointed;
>
> :)
>
> > Through HP OV is not bad piece of software.
>
> It's not, but I am disappointed it's not more router-centric. I appreciate the need to
> monitor workstations, but I've got multitudes more network devices that workstations/servers.
>
> Thanks for all the responses everyone.
> -scott
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |Scott Call |"How could this be a problem in a country where |
> |Router Geek | we have Intel and Microsoft"-AlGore on y2 k |
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow
(+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager)
(+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
More information about the NANOG
mailing list