Roy, Tom,

Using a separate community per instance works quite naturally if
you have a virtual router model where each virtual router has
its own SNMP configuration, RIB, and routing protocol instances. Our
product uses this technique. However, within a virtual router (we call
them contexts) one still has the problem when multiple routing protocol
instances and RIBs are supported. The problem isn't unique to OSPF so
I don't think an OSPFv2 specific solution is appropriate. I don't think
making everything a table and adding instance ID as a table index is
desirable.

Roy Jose wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>>Yes.
>>In SNMPv1, this can be done by having multiple 'agents' identified by
>>different community names or different IP addresses, each accessing a
>>distinct incarnation of MIB II and its subordinate branches.
>
>
> Say OSPF process 2 is mapped to a MIB view V1. How does the NMS know the
> details it collects through SNMP GET/GETNEXT are meant for process 2?
>
> I doubt if this MIB view concept is based on MIB object id's, meaning we may
> not be able to have separate MIB views for each OSPF processes since we
> can't map them to any object id's.
>
> Thanks,
> Roy
>
>
>>In SNMPv3, there is a more sophisticated mechanism of contexts which
>>formalises the techniques given above.
>>I do not think you should ever return more than one instance of a
>>given object in GET or GETNEXT.
>>
>>Tom Petch
>>nwnetworksdial.pipex.com
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Roy Jose <rojoseCISCO.COM>
>>To: OSPFDISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM <OSPFDISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
>>Date: 20 January 2003 16:04
>>Subject: OSPF MIB support for multiple OSPF processes
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Rfc1850 doesn't talk about what to be done regarding the
>>
>>retrieval(GET) of
>>
>>>MIB values when multiple OSPF processes exist on a router. Out first
>>>impression is to return details about all the processes. The problem
>>
>>is
>>
>>>while selecting values for MIB objects like
>>>ospfRouterId,ospfAreaBdrRtrStatus, ospfASBdrRtrStatus etc. They may
>>
>>differ
>>
>>>in separate processes. The Qn is, can we really support multiple
>>
>>processes
>>
>>>with rfc1850?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Roy
>>
>

--
Acee

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]