Nothing we do here should prevent you from using multiple snmp agents
running on different ports if desired.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 1:53 PM
> To: David Harrington; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] MIB Issue #1 - one or multiple? Seeking 
> consensus
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 10:31 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [Syslog] MIB Issue #1 - one or multiple? Seeking
consensus
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > [speaking as co-chair]
> > 
> > Finally, we are getting discussion of the issues of what 
> > needs to be modeled by more than two people with opposing ideas.
> > 
> > I would like to reach consensus on this question:
> > 
> > Is it acceptable practice to have more than one syslog 
> > application (sender, receiver, relay) running on a 
> > server/host/system simultaneously? 
> 
> Absolutely. Especially, sender. 
> 
> > At this point, based on Glenn's suggestion of having an 
> > experimental and a production syslogd running at the same 
> > time, and Rainer's description of syslog in a Windows 
> > environment, I think that having more than one active syslog 
> > application (sender/receiver/rerlay) is a reasonably common 
> > scenario in some environments and not in others.
> > 
> > The current MIB interface is designed to support multiple 
> > syslog sender or receivers on the same server/host. I believe 
> > this is a valid requirement.
> > 
> > If you agree with this, please say so.
> > If you disagree with this, please say so.
> 
> Agree.
> 
> However, I am not clear it must be covered by a single SNMP agent
with
> single MIB. It should probably be possible to manage multiple syslog
> instance with single SNMP agent per host, but we are not 
> excluding each
> instance having it own SNMP agent on different port, right?  
> 
> I don't know if this violates anything in SNMP, but it may be easier
> implementation-wise no to have to integrate my syslog component with
> system SNMP agent.  
> 
> Thanks,
> Anton. 
> 
> > 
> > The chairs will make a determination of consensus, and this 
> > issue will be closed.
> > 
> > David Harrington
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > co-chair, Syslog WG 
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Glenn M. Keeni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 3:30 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: [Syslog] The SIMPLE SyslogMIB
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > >    I will try to address David's concern about the complexity
> > > and utility of the MIB.
> > >    The basic design principle has been to keep the MIB simple.
> > > It has gone through several iterations, each one making it
> > > simpler than the earlier version :-)
> > >    At present the MIB basically allows the NMS to manage the
> > > syslog entity (sender, receiver, relay) by looking at its
> > >       (a) status ( up/down/suspended/unknown)
> > >       (b) configuration
> > >       (c) macro statistics
> > >            total number of messages (sent, received, relayed)
> > >            total number of exceptions
> > >                       ( drops, discards, malforms)
> > >    The notifications will tell the NMS about change in the
> > > syslog entity's status.
> > >   That in a nutshell is what one will want to or need to do
> > > for basic monitoring/management.
> > > 
> > > The MIB can provide information on multiple syslog entities.
> > > [Scenario: two syslogd's are running on a syslog server - one
> > >  for experiments one for regular operations.]
> > > 
> > > So if we want we may get a table like the following from the
MIB.
> > > 
> > >           Syslog Status and Statistics Summary
> > >           ====================================
> > > 
> > > +-----+-----+--------------+------+-----+-----+---------+
> > > |Index|Type |  Description |Status|     Messages        |
> > > |     |rsR* |              |      |Sent | Recd| Dropped |
> > > +-----+-----+--------------+------+-----+-----+---------+
> > > |  1  |r--  | SecuritySys  |  Up  |   - |  120|     -   |
> > > |  2  |r--  | Operations   |  Up  |   - | 1234|     -   |
> > > |  3  |r--  | Experiment-1 |  Up  |   - | 9890|     -   |
> > > |  4  |-s-  | SenderExpt-1 |  Up  |   99|   - |     0   |
> > > |  4  |rsR  | Experiment-2 | Down | 1200| 2345|     0   |
> > > +-----+-----+--------------+------+-----+-----+---------+
> > >       * r: Receiver , s: Sender, R: relay
> > > 
> > > Note that this is a sample. Several other columns are possible.
> > > In a similar manner the address and port of the syslog receiver,
> > > the number of malformed messages received etc. can be obtained.
> > > 
> > > In more advanced usage, a syslog entity can be started [on a
> > > specific address and port, if it is receiver] or an existing
> > > syslog entity can be stopped or suspended. [I will not try to
> > > explain how that can be done.]
> > > 
> > > I think that is simple as it can be. Let me know if
> > >   a. it can be made simpler.
> > >   b. it is too simple and more detailed information is
necessary.
> > >      e.g. facility wise statistics as follows.
> > > 
> > >           Facility-wise Syslog Statistics Summary
> > >           =======================================
> > >
+-----+--------+-----+--------------+------+-----+-----+---------+
> > > |Index|Facility|Type |  Description |Status|     Messages
|
> > > |     |        |rsR* |              |      |Sent | Recd|
malformd|
> > >
+-----+--------+-----+--------------+------+-----+-----+---------+
> > > |  1  |    51  |r--  | SecuritySys  |  Up  |   - |  123|     -
|
> > > |  1  |    52  |r--  | SecuritySys  |  Up  |   - |   45|    45
|
> > > |  1  |    53  |r--  | SecuritySys  |  Up  |   - |    6|     -
|
> > > |  2  |    51  |r--  | Operations   |  Up  |   - |  789|     -
|
> > > |  2  |    52  |r--  | Operations   |  Up  |   - |   10|    10
|
> > >
+-----+--------+-----+--------------+------+-----+-----+---------+
> > > 
> > >       * r: Receiver , s: Sender, R: relay
> > > 
> > > I will not recommend tables for
> > >     - facility-wise and severity-wise statistics
> > >     - facility-wise, severity-wise and host-wise statistics.
> > > for details like that one should probably use custom
applications.
> > > 
> > > Now, talking of MIB complexity. The present MIB is simple and
its
> > > implementation is simple. ( Yes. I have implemented it.) 
> We need to
> > > hear - something like "I want to do 'XYZ' - how do I do it with
> > > the MIB?".
> > > 
> > >    Glenn
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Syslog mailing list
> > > Syslog@lists.ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Syslog mailing list
> > Syslog@lists.ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
> > 
> 



_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

Reply via email to