1 okt 2009 kl. 19.06 skrev Jan Janak:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Olle E. Johansson oej@edvina.net wrote:
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 :-) .
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?
Some time ago I came up with a system for the iptel.org PEN. I structured the space so that we can store RADIUS attributes and LDAP attributes and objects there. You can find an example below.
24960 is the PEN for iptel.org. 24960.0 is reserved for RADIUS. 24960.1 is reserved for LDAP. 24960.1.0 are LDAP attributes, 2496.1.1 are LDAP objects, and so on. Following this pattern you can simply allocate 24960.2 for everything related to SNMP.
Ok, you just confirmed my thoughts and added radius to this soup. THANKS!
By the way, I asked for this number to be reassigned to the sip-router project. If approved it is possible that the number 24960 will become a new enterprise number for the sip-router project.
Then we will have an interesting situation.
1) Move the snmpstats module from modules_k to core modules. 2) Have a party, get drunk and make a decision whether to use sip- router OID or Kamailio or both
In the "both" alternative, we need to maintain two sets of MIBS. Since a lot of the stuff we have in the Kamailio MIB today actually seems copied from SIP MIB, it won't affect many settings.
Regardless of the outcome of the MIB/OID/PEN battle we can start looking into migration to the SIP mib.
/Olle