Subject: [OPSAWG] NAT MIB scope

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 16:43:05 -0500

Given present policies regarding the respective roles of SNMP and Yang, 
is it reasonable to say that the only configuration data that should be 
present in the NAT MIB is data directly relating to the control or 
interpretation of the remaining contents (i.e., the notifications, state 
information, and statistics)?

I can see a Yang module for NAT configuration in my possible future.

Tom Taylor

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 08:48:46 -0500

Since the beginning I've always said that configuring the NAT with SNMP was
out of scope.

The problem I see is not related to SNMP vs Yang, even though Yang might be
a much better choice. The problem is that NAT implementations vary very
much and their configuration even more so. It might be hard to find common
functionality worth standardizing.

Simon

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Given present policies regarding the respective roles of SNMP and Yang, is
> it reasonable to say that the only configuration data that should be
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>