Subject: [OPSAWG] Plea for action: draft-schoenw-opsawg-nm-dhc-04

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:12:33 -0400

No I have no intention of seeking another meeting slot for this little 
document. But I do ask whether people can approve it in principle, so we 
can put through the necessary Standards Action to get the DHCP/DHCPv6 
options in place.

Again, this is about DHCP options to tell a router where to find two 
management entities, the SYSLOG Collector and the SNMP Notification 
Receiver, for use primarily in configuring mobile backhaul.

Tom Taylor

---

From: Joe Marcus Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:23:05 -0400

> Receiver, for use primarily in configuring mobile backhaul.

For the syslog, I have no objections.  However, I found the SNMP bit 
lacking.  Specifically, there are additional security considerations 
depending on SNMP version (plus the trap versus inform thing).  While 
this is explained in the Appendix, I started asking myself these 
questions when I read the SNMP and security consideration sections 
before getting to the appendix.

My point is that perhaps additional text is needed in the SNMP section 
that at the very least points to Appendix A for more specifics on SNMP 
version, notif type and security.  And in the security considerations, 
it would be good to speak to the fact that SNMP requires a level of 
security that must be specified externally to the DHCP offer from the 
server.

Joe

-- 
Joe Marcus Clarke, CCIE #5384,         |          |
SCJP, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, VCP        |||||      |||||
Distinguished Services Engineer ..:|||||||||::|||||||||:..
Phone: +1 (919) 392-2867         c i s c o  S y s t e m s
Email: [email-masked]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:51:02 -0400

Thanks, will update pending other comments.

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:38:20 -0400

On Sep 27, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Tom Taylor <[email-masked]> wrote:

> No I have no intention of seeking another meeting slot for this little document. But I do ask whether people can approve it in principle, so we can put through the necessary Standards Action to get the DHCP/DHCPv6 options in place.
> 
> Again, this is about DHCP options to tell a router where to find two management entities, the SYSLOG Collector and the SNMP Notification Receiver, for use primarily in configuring mobile backhaul.

<no hats>

I must admit to being a little confused by this draft / the use case.

The draft says:
 "The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 [RFC2131] and DHCPv6
   [RFC3315]) is a relevant tool for this purpose.  It provides a number
   of existing options to allow a node to acquire its configuration file
   and to locate key servers in the network. "

Presumably the node connects to $something and downloads a (node specific) config file -- why is the SYSLOG and SNMP devices not simply defined in the config file? 

Or, is the intent that the nodes will all download the *same* config file, and then use DHCP options to provide the node specific bits?

If the latter, is [DNS, Hostname, SYSLOG, SNMP] the only things that differ between nodes? What about interface names / addresses / ssh keys / etc? 
I'm so not a mobile operator, so maybe I'm just not understanding what sorts of things these nodes do and so what sort of node specific config they need.

I'm not disagreeing with the concept, I'm more intrigued…

</no hats>
W

> 
> Tom Taylor
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 

--
Life is a concentration camp.  You're stuck here and there's no way out and you can only rage impotently against your persecutors.
                -- Woody Allen