perfsonar development work

[Fausto Vetter <>]

Hi,

Since I am implementing today these functionalities to cactisonar  
(errors/discards/utilization/snmp) I probably will add an extra  
configurable option in settings of cactisonar for the user to define  
if he/she wants to share this kind of snmp information.

Thanks,
Fausto

Quoting Joe Metzger 
<>:

> Fausto,
> I don't have any problem with the schema allowing for inclusion of the SNMP
> community string in a request. In fact, I think it should probably be there
> for completeness sake.
>
> This does not mean that I think it should be frequently used. The
> schema files that
> we have barely describe the syntax of the messages that perfSONAR services
> need to exchange. Issues about which fields should be populated with
> what data and how the messages should be used is the topic of a
> protocol specification,
> and we really haven't made much progress writing that document set yet.
>
>
> --Joe
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Fausto Vetter wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thats the point. if you see the following store file, for example,   
> > you can see community, version...
> >
> > http://anonsvn.internet2.edu/svn/nmwg/branches/snmp/example_instances/snmp/store.xml
> >
> > Fausto
> >
> > Quoting Joe Metzger 
> > <>:
> >
> > > Fausto,
> > > It depends on what you mean by SNMP information.
> > > There is a significant difference between information gathered by SNMP
> > > and the information
> > > necessary to collect that information from the raw devices, ie
> > > community strings, management
> > > interface addresses, etc.
> > >
> > > So far, I have only seen discussions about sharing the data collected
> > > by SNMP.  And reasonable
> > > service architectures could allow a "collect this SNMP MIB from router
> > > X" request authenticated
> > > with perfSONAR based authentication to be carried out using a SNMP
> > > community string that only the
> > > service actually knows. There is no need to expose the community string
> > > via the perfSONAR interface,
> > > and several good reasons not to.
> > >
> > > --Joe
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 6, 2007, at 8:44 AM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fausto;
> > > >
> > > > > Isnt it unsafe to share SNMP Information (like community)    
> > > > > throughout domains, once normally community for the version 1 of  
> > > > >   SNMP is the only authentication for SNMP? may you give this   
> > > > > option  on your implementation to user?
> > > >
> > > > Again, its up to the individual service deplorer to decide if   
> > > > they  wish to share this information.  At a bare minimum all that  
> > > >  is  required to mark data as being SNMP compatible is an   
> > > > eventType.   Other parameters are not required to be listed.
> > > >
> > > > -jason
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Fausto Vetter
> > NPD/UFSC
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.



--
Fausto Vetter
NPD/UFSC

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.