Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!buit13!kwe
From: kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: SNMP monitors
Message-ID: <67189@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 26 Oct 90 17:59:41 GMT
References: <9010251553.AA02760@nisc.jvnc.net>
Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu
Reply-To: kwe@bu.edu (Kent England)
Followup-To: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Organization: Boston U. Information Technology
Lines: 22

In article <9010251553.AA02760@nisc.jvnc.net>
 aggarwal@NISC.JVNC.NET (Vikas Aggarwal) writes:
>
>Another fact is that systems supporting SNMP do not consider snmp as a
>high priority task- as a result I have  routers that do not respond to
>SNMP  is they are busy passing  traffic. As a  consequence, during the
>better parts of  most afternoons, I would  have sites change status to
>"unknown" or "down" all the time because the routers would not respond
>to SNMP.
>
	SNMP should be given higher priority as ICMP usually is, but
that does not guarantee that CPU utilization will be requested by the
network management station.  Perhaps you are lucky that your routers
are telling you something you need to know that you otherwise would
not ask.  Even though you are unable to get your routers to respond to
SNMP queries, this situation is indirectly giving you network
management information that you could use.

	Go forth and upgrade your router CPUs and add memory or go get
skinnier pipes for your overwrought routers.

	--Kent