Article View: comp.protocols.snmp
Article #51CMIP (was Re: MIBs for SS7
From: Mike Schenk +31 70 33 23926
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:05
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:05
52 lines
2763 bytes
2763 bytes
In article <3156@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson) writes: > In article <1992Jul28.082348.1@research.ptt.nl> mschenk@research.ptt.nl (Mike Schenk +31 70 33 23926) writes: >>Since when is SNMP more secure than CMIP? SNMP is not secure at >>all. So current SNMP based NMSs can only get information from an >>agent. Setting variables is not implemented and therefore SNMP >>based NMSs can only be used to monitor your network. Controlling >>your network is out of the question (unless you want every geek >>to control your network as well). > > You aren't well informed. SNMP has security protocols in published RFCs. > I personally have been using SNMP with those security protocols for > about 6 months. Others have been using them for longer than that. That might be true it is about 10 months ago that I worked with SNMP and then all vendors stated that there were no security protocols and they would not implement setting of variables. > > Setting of variables IS implemented (again, you don't know what you > are talking about) in SNMP -- one can monitor and manage in a secure > fashion without any risk of someone else controlling your network. See above. > Do try harder to be fully informed. > >>I can hardly believe that the SNMP MIB for SONET has the same >>functionality as the CMIP MIB for SONET (or better for SDH). > > Did you bother to LOOK at them ? Obviously not. I did, look at CCITT recommendation G.774 and show me how you would put the same functionality in an SNMP MIB without getting a totally confusing MIB. > You just ranted in an uninformed manner. Had you looked and been > honest, you wouldn't have said the above. I think I would and I am certainly not uninformed. Have you ever bothered looking at CMIS/CMIP. >>While I am absolutely certain that there is a place for SNMP I am >>also absolutely certain that it is more appropriate to manage SS7 >>with CMIS/CMIP just because the MIB is better structured and has >>more functionality. > > Not true. As I said before, you just aren't informed about what you > are talking about. Into MY kill file now... As I said before I think I am. Mike
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Jul29.180550.1@research.ptt.nl>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!research.ptt.nl!mschenkReferences:
<1992Jul26.233303.1@research.ptt.nl> <3145@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <1992Jul28.082348.1@research.ptt.nl> <3156@ra.nrl.navy.mil>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.snmp Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!research.ptt.nl!mschenk From: mschenk@research.ptt.nl (Mike Schenk +31 70 33 23926) Subject: CMIP (was Re: MIBs for SS7 Message-ID: <1992Jul29.180550.1@research.ptt.nl> Sender: usenet@spider.research.ptt.nl (USEnet News) Nntp-Posting-Host: dnlts0 Organization: PTT Research References: <1992Jul26.233303.1@research.ptt.nl> <3145@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <1992Jul28.082348.1@research.ptt.nl> <3156@ra.nrl.navy.mil> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:05:50 GMT Lines: 52