Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!shelby!neon!Valinor.Stanford.EDU!vaf
From: vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU (Vince Fuller)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: SNMP "manageability" ?!?
Message-ID: <1991Feb13.103034@Valinor.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 13 Feb 91 18:30:34 GMT
References: <1991Feb12.042501.6758@cec1.wustl.edu> <1991Feb13.062435.23866@Think.COM>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU (Vince Fuller)
Organization: Stanford University Networking Systems
Lines: 19

In article <1991Feb13.062435.23866@Think.COM>, barmar@think.com (Barry
Margolin) writes:

|> It's still pretty early in the network management business, and many
|> vendors are just starting to provide SNMP facilities.  Some have
jumped in
|> feet first, while others are still unsure how it fits in.  For
instance, I
|> don't think any Unix systems are yet shipping with SNMP support
(luckily
|> there are publically-available snmpd implementations, of various
levels of
|> quality).

The last part of this paragraph is no longer true - at least one Unix
vendor, DEC, is shipping an SNMP agent as a standard daemon on all
current systems (as of at least Ultrix 4.1, possibly since Ultrix 4.0).

	--Vince