| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2073.1 | MTU expects RFC1212-compliant MIBs | TOOK::MCPHERSON | Scientific progress goes 'Boink!' | Fri Jan 10 1992 14:20 | 7 |
| To be absolutely unambiguous: the DECmcc MIB Compiler expects definitions to be
in accordance to RFC1212 (aka "Concise MIB Format").
If you would like to see it, I have copy of the RFC online in
TOOK::USER$43:[MCPHERSON.PUBLIC]RFC1212.TXT.
/doug
|
| 2073.2 | | SUBWAY::REILLY | Mike Reilly - New York Bank District | Fri Jan 10 1992 15:29 | 7 |
| If the Cisco sales people are playing ignorant on the MIB formats
then they are probably trying to sell their own management station
to your customer. If you don't have the mib definition then you won't
be able to monitor the box via the SNMP AM. The cisco mib is available
to your customer via the internet using ftp from ftp.cisco.com.
- Mike
|
| 2073.3 | thanks very much | FOUR62::LICAUSE | Al Licause (338-5661) | Mon Jan 13 1992 10:43 | 10 |
| I'll pass this along to the customer. I'm certain that Cisco is pushing
the proprietary scheme.
By the way, does anyone know if the MIB available via the internet as per
.2, is the same one listed earlier in this notes file? If so, I've tried
to compile it and use same with DECmcc. It has problems as I believe others
have found and reported.
Thanks,
Al
|
| 2073.4 | you can only tell by trying them | TOOK::MATTHEWS | | Tue Jan 14 1992 15:41 | 14 |
| answer to .3.
Al, there is no way to be sure. It is the norm for these vendors to
post something on the internet and then start changing the agent
and mibs. It is typical that what is on internet may represent what
they had a show (ie. Interop) and was never really shipped as a
product. This is especially so when they are trying to get a specific
sales advantage.
We tested a MIB against a CISCO box many months ago. We never got a
copy of the MIB and a box to agree. There were always some small
differences. However, for most objects they worked pretty well.
wally
|