RE: Searching for generic MIBs / OIDs

Thank you all for yourinput, I appriciate that. This really helped me.
I think I am going to use the cisco MIB for now, and create my own MIB
under the enterprise tree in a later step.

I also found the Syslog MIB, but stepped back from using it because it
is still a draft.

--
Best regards,
Andre Lorbach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: net-snmp-coders-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:net-snmp-coders-
> bounces@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Hood
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 1:02 AM
> To: net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: Searching for generic MIBs / OIDs
>
> Dave Shield wrote:
>
> > It's certainly unacceptable to define MIBs within an enterprise
subtree
> > administered by someone else. But that's not what's being
suggested
> > here.
> >
> > Cisco have defined a MIB "...to describe and store the system
> > messages generated by the IOS and any other
> > OS which supports syslogs."
> >
> > If this MIB matches the requirements of another organisation,
> > I don't personally see a problem with implementing that particular
> > MIB - either in terms of the management objects for GET/SET
> > requests, or the notifications defined within it.
> >
> > Andre would have to abide by the specification outlined by the
> > MIB, of course - he couldn't amend the semantics of the trap
> > (or any other object) without re-naming things to use different
> > OIDs. But if the agent reports syslog information using this
> > particular trap, with the correct contents - does it really matter
> > whether the originating box has the appropriate label on it or not?
>
> Adhering to Cisco's trap definition would be within the bounds of
> reason. From the perspective of a Netview maintainer, it's not a
> particularly useful trap, since it doesn't include the originator as
an
> OID and it may have been forwarded.
>
> However, since it is Cisco's MIB, they are able to modify, deprecate
and
> drop the trap.
>
> Using an RFC defined trap, or an enterprise specific trap is safer.
>
> However, MIBs in draft RFCs tend to be a nuisance. The OIDs often
change
> when they become standardised, and so you wind up with early adopters
> using the draft OIDs and later adopters the standardised OIDs.
>
> --
> There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes.
> -- Dr. Who
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Net-snmp-coders mailing list
> Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/...et-snmp-coders

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/...et-snmp-coders