On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Pekka Savola <pekkas(_at_)netcore(_dot_)fi>
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
(dhc) to consider the following document:
- 'DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery '
<draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2008-11-03. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case,
please
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-04.txt
First there was DHC Leasequery (RFC4388), next DHCv6 Leasequery (RFC5007),
now we have DHCv6 Bulk Leasequery. And someone seems to be proposing DHCPv4
bulk leasequery as well (draft-dtv-dhc-dhcpv4-bulk-leasequery).
RFC4388 S4.2 described reasons why SNMP was deemed inappropriate. And if you
look at the reasoning there, some of these are not even valid anymore for
bulk leasequeries. I remain unconvinced. A far better solution would seem
to be define a smaller MIB just for querying leases so implementing it would
be trivial. Bulk leasequeries just underline the fact that SNMP and MIB data
models are being reinvented inside DHCP.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
I am not an expert on SNMP, but the only way I could imagine that
working, would be by using queries for MIBs which would look like
this:
get <MIB>.<querytype>
As the query type can be a relay id, link-address or remote id, this
would look a bit strange to me. I know and use SNMP mostly for
querying specific, predefined counters or tables, not variable entries
in the MIB tree. Also all implementations I know, use UDP not TCP for
SNMP queries and replies.
The DHCPv6 Bulk Leasquery proposal looks like a logical next step to me.
Marcus
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf