Talk:Simple Network Management Protocol
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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.
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Simple Network Management Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_0t/12_0t3/feature/guide/Snmp3.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029103140/http://www.rfc-editor.org/categories/rfc-standard.html to http://www.rfc-editor.org/categories/rfc-standard.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There should be a History section
[edit]Given how long SNMP has been around (32 years), there should be a History section in this article.
Resource: RFC 1067, from August 1988: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1067
-- Dan Griscom (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
See also
[edit]Can someone please fix the typos in the See also section? Siimulator and one other one affected by this "dash=, " thing, I can't see how to edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.1.237 (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Looks OK right now ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Atomic Operations
[edit]The article claims that for GetRequest and SetRequest PDUs that agent interactions are made atomically. Please provide a reference for these claims from the defining RFCs. At first blush they seem to be untrue. 149.32.192.40 (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Finding the reference for writes was trivial, but I couldn't find one for reads in the RFC's. I do think atomic results can actually be crucial for correctness, but my practical experience is rather limited, so I don't dare make any bolder claims :-). I've added the reference and added citation needed to the other claim. This is more visible than just a talk page section, and also alerts readers that the claim is disputed.Digital Brains (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. But your reference for writes (RFC1157) is a recommendation (should) not a requirement (must.) From personal experience, not very much is atomic in SNMP. I lean toward removing the atomic claims in both cases. It's an important concept, there's nothing saying the fill of a multi object get PDU is atomic and thus time coherent. At least that I know about. Apologies if I am wrong. 149.32.192.40 (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Note that RFC 1157 predates RFC 2119, and that the word should, correspondingly, is also not in all caps. So I think we can't now for sure whether it's a recommendation or a requirement. I suspect I read it as prescriptive precisely because it was not in all caps. I definitely would have interpreted it as a recommendation if it was in all caps. But yeah, I agree, it doesn't look good for the claim, I agree with removing it. Digital Brains (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- No wait, SNMPv3 does actually say it's mandatory. I'm not going to edit any more right now, but RFC 3416 page 22 says
Each of these variable assignments occurs as if simultaneously with respect to all other assignments specified in the same request.
- Digital Brains (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Note that RFC 1157 predates RFC 2119, and that the word should, correspondingly, is also not in all caps. So I think we can't now for sure whether it's a recommendation or a requirement. I suspect I read it as prescriptive precisely because it was not in all caps. I definitely would have interpreted it as a recommendation if it was in all caps. But yeah, I agree, it doesn't look good for the claim, I agree with removing it. Digital Brains (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. But your reference for writes (RFC1157) is a recommendation (should) not a requirement (must.) From personal experience, not very much is atomic in SNMP. I lean toward removing the atomic claims in both cases. It's an important concept, there's nothing saying the fill of a multi object get PDU is atomic and thus time coherent. At least that I know about. Apologies if I am wrong. 149.32.192.40 (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)