Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!mimir!hugin!augean!sirius.ua.oz.au!nt!levels!cccar From: Chris.Rusbridge@levels.sait.edu.au (Chris Rusbridge) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Management interfaces on LANs (802.1) Message-ID: <3040@levels.sait.edu.au> Date: 24 Nov 89 12:56:39 GMT References: <6465@portia.Stanford.EDU> <2875@levels.sait.edu.au> <6683@eva.slu.se> Organization: Sth Australian Inst of Technology Lines: 27 In article <6683@eva.slu.se>, ROBERT@eva.slu.se (Robert Olsson datoravd, EMC tfn 018-672581) writes: > At our university we just ordered BICC's Isoview & bridges for the > fist stage of our campus network. So far Isoview implements > 802.1 b and 802.1 d. Spanning tree is described in part d and is > as far a I understand implemeted by many vendors. I've just attended a demo of Isoview, which was described as implementing an "intercept" of 802.1. Other sources have indicated to me that 802.1 is a long way off standardising bridge management, and there does not seem to be any convergence between it and ISO network management. So I guess the implementation is likely to change a lot, and be of limited use in managing non-Isolan products (it can only manage one of their several types of bridge now). Isoview is reasonable, but lacks both functionality and generality when compared with the SNMP-based management stations that are emerging. I'd bet on the latter in the short term and CMIP in the (very?) long term. Chris Rusbridge Academic Computing Service Manager, SA Institute of Technology ACSnet: Chris.Rusbridge@levels.sait.oz [.au] InfoPSI: Chris.Rusbridge@sait.edu.au (DTE 505282622004) Phone: +61 8 343 3098 Fax: +61 8 349 6939 Post: The Levels, SA 5095 Australia