Re: SNMP traps

[Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>]

Tom-

These are good suggestions.  I like the idea of trapping
only the abnormal terminations, since generating large numbers
of traps is not usually a good thing.

--
Mark

Thomas McSweeney wrote:
> 
> Mark,
> 
> I'm new to the iSCSI MIB effort, but I'll toss out some suggestions...
> 
> I think we should trap iSCSI Session terminations, except those
> accomplished via Logout.  I know this might result in traps for "normal"
> events, like when someone powers off their initiator instead of shutting
> down gracefully.  If we want to get fancy, we could send them
> conditionally, e.g., only trap if there were any incomplete commands or
> undelivered responses at the time the session terminated.
> 
> Trapping iSCSI connection terminations would be interesting too, especially
> to implementations which allow multiple connections per session.  Loss of a
> connection could mean loss of capacity or reduced reliability of a session,
> which could be reflected on the management station display.  This may
> already be covered by the TCP MIB (I haven't checked yet), but coordinating
> a TCP trap with iSCSI objects would be more difficult than having an iSCSI
> trap.
> 
> It would also be helpful to trap changes to a target's LU list, and/or LUN
> mappings.  Minimally, a simple trap to notify the manager that a change
> occurred would be enough to prompt the management station to do the GETs to
> refresh its tables.
> 
> Tom McSweeney
> iSCSI Development, IBM Storage Networking
> Email: rf42tpme@us.ibm.com
> Phone: (USA) 919-254-5634  (tie line: 444-5634)
> Fax:   (USA) 919-254-0391  (tie line: 444-0391)
> 
> Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 03/28/2001 09:57:47 AM
> 
> Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
> 
> To:   Sandeep Joshi <sandeepj@research.bell-labs.com>
> cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject:  Re: SNMP traps
> 
> Sandeep-
> 
> We have been looking for requirements for traps, and have not
> addressed them yet.  You are the first to really ask for them.
> 
> Trapping the login and authentication failures seems like a
> good idea; do you have any other ideas or requirements?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark

-- 
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
mbakke@cisco.com
763.398.1054