Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!ub.d.umn.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!UNET.UNET.UMN.EDU!fin
From: fin@UNET.UNET.UMN.EDU ("Craig A. Finseth")
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: [swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!xylogics!bu.edu!buit13!kwe@ucsd.edu: Re: SNMP monitors]
Message-ID: <9010251845.AA14599@unet.unet.umn.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 90 18:45:48 GMT
References: <9010251553.AA02760@nisc.jvnc.net>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29


   I do realize  that an overloaded  router should be  addressed, but  if
   SNMP  could  gaurantee me a  reply if a router  was UP  and doing  its
   primary funtion, I would stop  using ping to  monitor our routers  and
   pay *serious* attention to snmp based  monitoring programs, as opposed
   to *saying* I use   SNMP to prove  that  I  am  in sync with   the new
   technologies that exist.

   That is to say, is there  someone out  there who relies *only* on SNMP
   to monitor the net ? Or will  'ping' be used as  a monitoring tool for
   the rest of IP's life ?

I see no reason why it is desirable to stop using ping (or, more
precisely, the ICMP Echo mechanism).  Most checking just wants to know
"are you there" and the ICMP Echo mechanism does that with much less
overhead than SNMP ever could.

For example, the network monitoring here at the U uses ICMP Echo for
most checking, reserving SNMP for those "higher level" tasks such as
checking routing tables and interface configurations.  The software
also knows not to perform the higher level checks unless the device is
known to be up.  (It also knows not to check hosts behind a down
router, but that is not related to SNMP).

Craig A. Finseth			fin@unet.umn.edu [CAF13]
University Networking Services		+1 612 624 3375 desk
University of Minnesota			+1 612 625 0006 problems
130 Lind Hall, 207 Church St SE		+1 612 626 1002 FAX
Minneapolis MN 55455-0134, U.S.A.