Re: Configuration management, version 5
> Stephen Zander <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I was going to comment that this screams SNMP/MIB to me, until
> > I noticed that you mentioned this later on. Without leaping to
> > implementation ahead of design, wouldn't explicitly using an SNMP
> > approach reduce the work involved here (eg no need to re-invent
> > databases/access mechanisms).
> While we must provide for networked installation we must also provide
> for non-networked installation.
Agreed (many people are using Debian on stand alone machines)
> Also, I am a bit uncomfortable with SNMP for large chunks of text.
> Last time I checked, SNMP was rather complex in the way it dealt with
> things that wouldn't fit into a single packet.
> Anyways, while it's reasonable to expect that someone can map the
> interface onto SNMP, I see no reason to require it.
I think mapping on to LDAP would be more important - In the corporate
environment the SNMP protocol belongs to the people who manage the low level
parts of the network, and Debian systems can already be looked at (though
not configured) through SNMP. The higher levels of the OSI stack usually
'belong' to people who are more familiar with NT or Netware Directory services
and the trend seems to be towards extending the directory services down the
stack (with Directory Enabled Networking etc) rather than the other way round.
(For example there is a Mail Agent MIB defined, but it does not seem to be
p.s. I have not tried the latest boot disks, but usually on a fresh install
I used to be asked about IP addresses etc. In a large networked environment
it would be better to just ask 'Do you want to get network information via
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com