Re: Renaming Objects - Impact to SNMP Managers

Kai Mao <kai.mao@fnc.fujitsu.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> What is the impact of having two sets of MIBs with different
> objects that have the same OID? Is this a bad thing? If so,
> can we never change the name of an existing object?[/color]

In general, renaming objects is a bad idea. However, if nobody in
the external world uses your MIB, then the problem is a local problem.
Otherwise, people who use your MIB will not be your friends if you
rename things.

/js

--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

HI,

Just to add more emphasis to Juergen's response...

Once you have "published" (that is made available to others)
definitions, then making interoperable changes will result
in problems!

This is one of those fundamental issues with distributed systems.
That is, you cannot control others, because you used a
standard technology and published definitions to others
that you have no control or knowledge of their usage.

This is one of the reasons why it is my belief that a MIB
designer should not create and publish definitions for commercial
products without the appropriate training and experience,
which generally takes about 6 months except for the most
trivial designs.

On 24 Jul 2003, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:[color=blue]
> Kai Mao <kai.mao@fnc.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > What is the impact of having two sets of MIBs with different
> > objects that have the same OID? Is this a bad thing? If so,
> > can we never change the name of an existing object?[/color]
>
> In general, renaming objects is a bad idea. However, if nobody in
> the external world uses your MIB, then the problem is a local problem.
> Otherwise, people who use your MIB will not be your friends if you
> rename things.
>
> /js
>[/color]
Regards,
/david t. perkins