Subject: Question on draft-ietf-snmpv3-coex-v2-04.txt

From: Ann Lo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 18:06:48 -0700

Hi,

Is there any chance that there might be a limitation on the use of
community names in rfc2576 and the recent draft?

An example in v1 is as follows:

   * In v1, we may use a community name, say "NetMgr", for access and
     the same community name for traps.
   * For MIB access, we may restrict the source IP addresses of "NetMgr"
     to "138.120.1.1" and "138.120.1.2" and "138.120.1.3".
   * For traps, we may define trap destinations to be "138.120.1.1"
     only.

In rfc2576 and the recent draft, the community table is used for both
the processing of incoming requests and the generation of outgoing
notifications. In the above example, however, incoming requests from
"NetMgr" should be checked against three source addresses. Outgoing
notifications using the community name "NetMgr" should be sent to one
destination address only.

According to Section 5.2.1 and 5.2.3, the first entry in the community
table satisfying the specified criteria is used. Does this mean that two
different community names must be used for access and for traps?

A separate question from the above is: Do we care the values of
snmpCommunityContextEngineID and snmpCommunityContextName in the
community table if the trap destinations are SNMP managers supporting
only v1?

Your information would be appreciated.

Regards,
Ann