Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!husc6!rice!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CERF.NET!pushp
From: pushp@CERF.NET (Pushpendra Mohta)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: [swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!xylogics!bu.edu!buit13!kwe@ucsd.edu: Re: SNMP monitors]
Message-ID: <9010260416.AA00747@nic.cerf.net>
Date: 26 Oct 90 04:16:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 14

>>
>>as near as i can tell, and no one has come out and said this, but it seems
>>to be an undercurrent in alot of people's minds, is that SNMP is enough, and
>>ping is somehow dirty, and shouldnt be used.  (*geesh*)
>>
>>
>>

And not to mention the fact that only traceroute and ping will work
when debugging problems with boxes you dont know the SNMP community
names of ...

--pushpendra
CERFnet