Lwapp Mailing List: RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP

[s. goswami (sgoswami]

Thanks Pat, see my comments.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Pat R. Calhoun wrote:

>
> >> I do not agree with your opinion of SNMP (it would be beneficial if you
> >> could list a few problems in using SNMP). SNMP SMI has the appropriate
> >> Information Model to manage routing. The SNMP transport protocol may
> >> not be appropriate for carrying routing information in a "mesh"
> >> network.
> >>
> >
> >Since SNMP has objects, it could be used to describe routing but it isn't.
> >Why? OSPF and IS-IS are used for that. I believe it is the type of
> >information and time scale of the exchange that is important. The type of
> >information for a routing protocol consists of routes, hosts, and
> >information on link conditions. That is precisely the kind of information
> >that needs to be exchanged between access points. SNMP is for retreiving and
> >setting static configuration and logging information, not for controlling
> >link conditions and host location. Of course, it could be used for that, but
> >I think it would be a misuse of the protocol.
>
> Another analogy is L2TP. Since CAPWAP is trying to split the AP in a similar 
> way
> that L2TP has split a NAS function, I think the fact that l2TP does not use 
> SNMP
> to control the LAC in real-time. Again, SNMP could be used, when it does get 
> tricky
> to design a state machine that relies on multiple protocols. This can lead to 
> some
> rather unfortunate race conditions, and is very difficult to ensure correct 
> timing of
> operations.
>

Why not use SNMP PDU's over the CAPWAP transport ? That way the AP's and
AR's can be modeled as SNMP SMI MIB and CAPWAP can use the same OID etc.
verbatim. What would be the negative side , if any ?

Subrata

> PatC
>
> PatC
>