Hi Tom, >> I think that this is not the case for syslog and so the additional complexity is not justified.
IMHO, adding an option for Multiple instance does not add additional complexity; It just adds an option for extensibility. Thanks Rohit -----Original Message----- From: tom.petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 2:13 AM To: Glenn M. Keeni Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Syslog] MIB Issue #1 - one or multiple? Seeking consensus ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glenn M. Keeni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "tom.petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "David Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [Syslog] MIB Issue #1 - one or multiple? Seeking consensus > tom.petch wrote: > > I do not believe that the MIB should be modelled to support multiple instances > > of a syslog device as an SNMP table. > > > > Where multiple instances do exist in a single machine, and there is > > a requirement to manage more than one with SNMP, then I believe that > > the usual SNMP techniques are adequate to support this and each can > > be modelled within the > > MIB module with scalar objects, thereby simplifying the MIB module > > and making > > more likely to be implemented. > Using Tables is the standard SNMP technique for managing multiple > instances. That is exactly what is done in the current MIB. > > Glenn Well, no. If you have two routers within a single box, served by a single agent, there is no table in any MIB module that has ever existed that allows you to have both router FIBs etc as part of a single object tree starting at 1.3.6.1.2.1. Some specific MIB modules have taken the view that multiple instances should be so supported and so have made tables of (almost) every object pertaining to the instance, as you have chosen to do with syslog. Most creators of MIB modules have not done this and have relied on other standard SNMP techniques to allow for the support of multiple instances of the router, hub, bridge, host etc etc etc by SNMP. Which technique is best depends on whether the occurrence of multiple instances is the norm, which should be modelled and supported. I think that this is not the case for syslog and so the additional complexity is not justified. I imagine you think otherwise. Tom Petch > > Glenn > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 7:31 PM > > 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? > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ 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
