Talk:Simple Network Management Protocol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as High-importance).
 


Internet Culture & History - Simplicity & Running Code[edit]

This article deals with the simplicity and absent features (missing complexity) of the SNMP remote management protocol. This question (Why missing?) is an entry point for a missing treatment of the deeper culture and history of this protocol, of the prime mover in its creation Marshall Rose, and of the Internet itself, which these people and that culture created fast and first among many attempts to move global telecommunications from circuit-switched to packet-switched network technology. Rose was also a prime mover in the creation of the Plain Old Postoffice (POP; Post Office Protocol) protocol used by millions to collect their mail.

Here is some inspiration to authors better qualified than I (steal whatever you want, this is Wikiland, plagiarism is free). From "How Anarchy Works -- On location with the masters of the metaverse, the Internet Engineering Task Force." by Paulina Borsook in Wired (quote) MIT professor Dave Clark, one of the grand old men of the Internet, may have unintentionally written the IETF anthem in his A Cloudy Crystal Ball/Apocalypse Now presentation at the 24th annual July 1992 IETF conference. Today, it's immortalized on T-shirts: "We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code." Which might translate to, "In the IETF, we don't allow caucusing, lobbying, and charismatic leaders to chart our path, but when something out on the Net really seems to work and makes sense to most of us, that's the path we'll adopt." (/quote)

After establishing that it was intentional and historically characteristic that the SIMPLE Network Management Protocol be simple, this article can grow and go on to enumerate the development since the 1990s that have strained that simplicity and widening application of the SNMP: cheap memory, ever-larger firmware, protocols with ever more options, very long logs and tables (e.g., router tables, switch tables) that a larger network requires and larger memories can store, and a public and global network that now embraces bad actors.

Much can be taught to many from this little SNMP article. The SNMP is a small, concrete piece of the Internet and its history. We will surprise readers with how much makes sense and is learned. Jerry-VA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Introduction to SNMP, with an overview of RFCs[edit]

RFC 3410 provides a valuable introduction to the SNMP framework, and an overview of the many RFCs relating to it.

Addendum to Security Implications[edit]

There have been some additional security issues with SNMP that have come up lately, and should probably be listed. The vulnerability mentioned is related to autodiscovery, so it might be appropriate to make mention of it there as well. Link to the original paper: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/woot12/woot12-final14.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.99.224 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

SNMPv2 is not a Draft[edit]

IMHO: SNMPv2c's RFC 1901 is not a "Draft Standard". It is at the experimental track and now is declared historic. The Draft Standard RFC 1908 has simply involved into RFC 3584.

OK, we can check the status of v2 docs here: at the RFC Editor. A handful of RFCs were designated Historic in 2002, but we should bear in mind that this was a specific action and isn't particularly common practise. Historic sends a fairly strong message (that the document is "not an Internet Standard of any kind", see [1]) and tends to happen when such a statement is intended. We can see that 1441, 1451 and 1901 are Historic. 1442 - 1444, 1448 - 1450, 1452 are Proposed Standards but have been obsoleted. 1902-1908 are Draft Standards which have been obsoleted. This sounds a bit incongruous but it is the intent of the IETF and we should reflect it: eg they have the maturity of DS but a newer, better standard exists (v3, which is a full STD).
Also we have an outstanding citation needed for about four years on "SNMPv1.5". looking at [2] (1992) and [3] (1994), the earliest drafts in each case, both are clearly called "SNMPv2". So I think it reasonable to lose this reference unless we can find an authoritative source for "v1.5" (say notes from a WG meeting or a draft by one of the authors). Behind The Wall Of Sleep (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

SMUX redirects to this page, but "SMUX" appears nowhere in the article[edit]

What it says on the tin--I hate it when that crap happens. What the heck does it mean for SNMP to be "multiplexed", and is that not important information for this article to contain? Confused and sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.202.203 (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)