Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: Acee Lindem (acee_at_REDBACK.COM)
Date: Tue Jan 21 2003 - 09:00:55 CST
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
Roy Jose wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>>Rfc1850 doesn't talk about what to be done regarding the
>>>MIB values when multiple OSPF processes exist on a router. Out first
>>>impression is to return details about all the processes. The problem
>>>while selecting values for MIB objects like
>>>ospfRouterId,ospfAreaBdrRtrStatus, ospfASBdrRtrStatus etc. They may
>>>in separate processes. The Qn is, can we really support multiple