| Re: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: James Kempf (kempf |
|
| Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:33:44 -0600 (CST) | |
> This is a problem (I haven't noticed any service problems here at the
> IETF) but I do not understand what it has to do with
> "to SNMP or not to SNMP". Anything "to many" we can deal with using
> an intermediate hierarchy level, lets call it MOC. NOC to MOC is more
> of a network reposititory type of a problem. MOC to AP is clearly
> an SNMP, or whatever the chosen standard IETF management protocol is,
> type of a problem.
>
It isn't clear to me. Why?
jak
- Re: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP, (continued)
-
Re: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP s. goswami, November 13 2003
- Re: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP James Kempf, November 13 2003
- RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP john.loughney, November 13 2003
-
RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP Branislav Meandzija, November 13 2003
- Re: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP James Kempf, November 13 2003
-
Re: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP s. goswami, November 13 2003
-
RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP Branislav Meandzija, November 13 2003
- Re: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP James Kempf, November 13 2003
-
RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP Pat R. Calhoun, November 13 2003
- RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP s. goswami, November 13 2003
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.