| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1499.1 | It does have a part number and an SPD... | BSYBEE::EGOLF | John C. Egolf LKG2-2/T02 x226-7874 | Fri Sep 13 1991 11:16 | 5 |
| The SNMP AM is sold seperately. It does have an SPD and a part
number, although I don't have the numbers here in front of me.
Contact Dick Andersen (marketing) or Deepak Goyal (prod mgt)
for more info.
|
| 1499.2 | Product is described in SPD 32.50.00 | NSSG::R_SPENCE | Nets don't fail me now... | Fri Sep 13 1991 16:00 | 25 |
| Actually, this reminds me of something that is very confusing to lots
of folks.
These problems are connected to the fact the the module is NAMED the
DECmcc TCP/IP SNMP Access Module for VMS Version 1.0
It is SPD 32.50.00
We keep refering to it as the SNMP mm but you can't find any info
officially by using that description.
To further confuse things, some of the files on the system that are
supplied by this product have the format
MCC_SNMP_xxxx
and others have the format
MCC_TCPIP_xxxx
Personally, I think it is a bug that there is an inconsitancy in the
file nameing. It adds to the confusion as to what we sold.
For example; why buy the TCPIP Access Module to get the SNMP global
entity class? Why not buy the SNMP Access Module?
Please clean this up for V1.2!
s/rob
|
| 1499.3 | can product managers create bugs? | MKNME::DANIELE | | Fri Sep 13 1991 21:08 | 16 |
| You won't believe this, but there was alot of thought by alot of
people as to what to call the AM, and the global entity.
It was decided that the AM helps manage TCP/IP networks.
(You don't have a NICE AM, or an RBMS AM, right?)
But the entity class name of TCPIP didn't fly, so SNMP was
reluctantly hit upon.
I agree it's less than ideal. The problem isn't so much what we
call things, it's that the concept of a 'node' or a 'box', that can
speak different management protocols, doesn't play well given the
current architecture.
Live and learn,
Mike
|
| 1499.4 | More infos . | BONNET::MALAISE | All you need is laugh! | Sun Sep 15 1991 19:36 | 12 |
|
As mentionned the SPD for the DECmcc TCP/IP SNMP AM for VMS is
32.50.00 , the Q Number for the license is QL-YSVa9-AA , the MLP
is 5 K$ and UCX is today prereq.
FYI we have sold around 25 licenses of DECmcc (Director/BMS/SMS/EMS)
since Q1 (ie 9 weeks) in Europe , and 13 licenses of the TCP/IP
SNMP AM . This means that 50 % of our customer who buy DECmcc today
use the SNMP am (not really surprising indeed ).
Regards ,
MaRc .
|
| 1499.5 | UCX won't be "required" for SNMP V1.1 | BSYBEE::EGOLF | John C. Egolf LKG2-2/T02 x226-7874 | Sun Sep 15 1991 23:54 | 22 |
| re .4,
While UCX *is* required for the TCP/IP SNMP V1.0, it appears
that you will be able to use TGV's Multinet connection product
for the V1.1 version of the SNMP AM planned to ship end of
Oct/early Nov.
Attached is a report from one of our TCP/IP SNMP FT sites...
From: DELNI::DECUAC::"BEMIS@ORECES.CTD.ORNL.GOV" "Curt Bemis,46708::bemis;
615-574-4769" 28-AUG-1991 17:13:18.17
DECmcc BMS installed last week without problem. We still struggle with
DNS but it looks stable. Installed TCPIP_AM today and re-built TCPIP_AM.EXE
using UCXIPC.OLB, a UCX compatibility library supplied under TGV's Multinet
package. Multinet version we run is V. 3.0-Rev. D. We loaded the
UCX Driver in Multinet, re-booted, and voila--TCPIP_AM works like a champ.
We diddled a Proteon router, (only MIB-II) stuff right now), examined
a few things to be sure the whole thing works, and it does!!! No problems.
|