Subject: Re: [Isms] #6: Are there are any wrinkles to coexistence withSNMPv1/v2c/USM?

From: Robert Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:58:51 -0500

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:48:37 -0700 Randy wrote:
RP> Someone should think through how proxy would work, or whether it would be
RP> simpler to just say "don't do that".

It would be simpler, but I don't think we should do that. I can definitely
envision people wanting to put an SSHSM enabled device at/near the border of
their network and have it proxy for their legacy v1/v2c/v3 devices inside the
network.

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 13:45:38 -0800 (PST)

HI,

In the past (which seems to repeat) when new SNMP technology is made
available, then it is implemented first in managed devices, and only
later in managers. And of course, there will always be managed
devices that will never be updated.

So, I believe that it is required that the following be supported:
  Manager<--SNMPv1,SNMPv2c,SNMPv3/USM-->PROXY<---SNMPv3/ISMS-->device

> their network and have it proxy for their legacy v1/v2c/v3 devices inside the
Regards,
/david t. perkins