1 Oct
2009
1 Oct
'09
9:49 p.m.
On Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2009, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Anyone else in the developer community with any insights/opinions?
Hi Olle,
i also think that using the existing standard SIP mibs would be better then
this custom tree.
My thinking is that we might at some point end up having to specify
our own LDAP schemas. Having a nicely build OID tree makes it more
simple to handle this, since LDAP schemas use OIDs as identifiers as
well. I guess that other developers can come up other protocols that
use OIDs too :-)
Any more input from the rest of the crowd before I move ahead and
start messing with this?
I did not used snmp that much, and even less ldap, so i can't really judge on
this question, sorry. ;)
Henning
I still want to have a discussion about the last part
above - why
are we not using the standard SIP mib where we can?
Well, I think we should use the standard SIP mibs where they are
available. Also, maybe we should reorganize the mib so that we
suballocate for
future use outside of snmp
kamailiooid.10 SNMP
kamailiooid.20 LDAP
Right now I believe we're using the full OID directly for snmp
subclasses.
Anyone that has experience of organizing OID trees that can give
some input?
We can't change it in every release, as we will propably break
existing scripts and management platforms, so we will have to try
to do it right while we're messing with it :-)
OK, but since I haven't been using it heavily, I cannot say how is
better to have the OID trees. Therefore I can help a bit more with
messing that with doing it right from first time :-) .