Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!TRWIND.TRW.COM!tkostan
From: tkostan@TRWIND.TRW.COM (Tyson Kostan)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  CMOT Implementations
Message-ID: <9003161713.AA01109@trwind.TRW.COM>
Date: 16 Mar 90 17:13:49 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 23


I can give you a DoD view on the subject.  I work for TRW and we are the 
supplier of TCP/IP componants to the Air Force under the ULANA (Unified
Local Area Network Architecture) contract -- a requirements contract which
will soon spread across all of the DoD.  The Air Force has decided (or maybe
better put, not decided) that they will do both.  Under our contract, we will
have to provide a manager which can speak both CMOT and SNMP.  Our initial
feeling on this subject was that this requirement came about due to 3COM's
support of CMOT and not SNMP.  I'm not too sure about this view at this time.

3COM claimed that it would have CMOT agents for all of its devices, but I'm
not sure how far they have come with that.  Now they are touting SNMP.

DEC claims to be an ISO shop, and will be providing managers which support
both CMOT and SNMP capabilities.

I was reciently at COM-Net '90, and I didnt see any support for CMOT, where
support for SNMP was everywhere, either in the form of managers, agents or
proxy devices.

In my opinion, ever since CMOT and SNMP went their own seperate ways (when the
MIB split), SNMP has completely taken center stage, and bumped CMOT to the 
shadows.  Only time will tell...