[openib-general] [RFC] OpenSM Interactive Console

[Hal Rosenstock]

Hi Eitan,
 
I sit corrected. There are R/W parameters in the SM MIB as you indicate. I was thinking of all the other IPoIB MIBs. It's been a while since I looked at the SM MIB.
 
Also, the SM MIB (draft-ietf-ipoib-subnet-manager-mib-00) expired a while ago. At a minimum, it needs to be dusted off. That would include updating it for IBA 1.2.
 
-- Hal

________________________________

From: Eitan Zahavi [mailto:eitan at mellanox.co.il]
Sent: Tue 10/25/2005 5:19 AM
To: Hal Rosenstock
Cc: Troy Benjegerdes; openib-general at openib.org
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] OpenSM Interactive Console



Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 14:38, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
>
>>Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 03:08, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I would suggest to use SNMP for the tasks below. IETF IPoIB group
>
> has
>
>>>>defined an SNMP MIB that can support the required functionality
>
> below.
>
>>>
>>>The IETF SNMP MIBs are one way of presenting the information to the
>>>outside world. There are other possible management interfaces. The
>
> SNMP
>
>>>MIB instrumentation would need to use lower layer APIs to get this
>>>information out of the SM.
>>
>>Yes but the IETF SM MIB is the only one that is close to a standard
>
> way.
>
>>It does not require low level interface if it will integrate into the
>
> OpenSM code.
>
>>One way to do it is buy extending OpenSM with an AgentX interface.
>>
>>IMO one clear advantage of using SNMP for SM integration is that the
>
> code will work with any SM that is IETF compliant.
>
>>Also if you want to write a "client server" type of application on top
>
> of an SM you
>
>>can either stick to sending MADs which translate into SA client based
>
> application or
>
>>you better stay with some known protocol for management (like SNMP)
>
> and not develop yet another protocol for
>
>>doing exactly the same things as SNMP already supports.
>
>
> There are limitations in the SNMP MIBs. One is that they are RO so they
> are more for monitoring. Also, many environments do not use SNMP. It is
> unclear how much of a requirement it is to manage any SM or how many
> other SMs support the SM MIB. (There are other IB associated MIBs too).

SNMP MIBs are certainly not just RO a simple example from the SM MIB:
   ibSmPortInfoLMC           OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX              Unsigned32(0..7)
       MAX-ACCESS          read-write
       STATUS              current
       DESCRIPTION
          "LID mask for multipath support.  User should take extra caution
          when setting this value, since any change will effect packet
          routing."
       ::= { ibSmPortInfoEntry 19 }


I agree that it is possible that currently no SM is supporting the SM MIB.
But it does make sense to have ALL of the them support it. Such that they can
be activated/deactivated and configured in the manner.

Most unix distributions and windows box have standard SNMP agent and client included in them
So it does not take more then simple bash or C code to interact with the SM if it supports SNMP.

> 
>
>>>>Everything but the dynamic partitioning (OpenSM does not have
>>>>partition manager to this moment)
>>>
>>>
>>>What Troy meant by partitioning is not necessarily IB partitioning.
>>
>>How are you sure about that? Troy - please comment.
>
>
> I think you missed an email on this.
> 
>
>>>>and forwarding of Performance
>>>>Monitoring traps (which are generated by the PM) can be done through
>>>>osmsh or through SA client today.
>>>
>>>
>>>What PerfMgr are you referring to ?
>>
>>No specific one. But the specification does not require the SM too.
>
>
> Huh ? What spec ? An SM is required in a subnet. There is no subnet
> without this. There is a subnet without a PerfMgr.
Yes its a typo I meant PM. SM is a requirement. You know I did not mean that.
>
>
>>For various reasons (like load) it might make more sense to have the
>
> PM distributed.
>
> Sure. Also, the PerfMgr need not be colocated with the SM anyhow.
>
>
>>Anyway, my point is that the SM is not the owner of PM trap reporting.
>
> It is the PM that
>
>>should support Reporting (I.e  InformInfo registration and Trap
>
> forwarding) for PM traps.
>
>>But the spec does not define such traps anyway.
>
>
> My point was that the PerfMgr is beyond the IBA spec. It is only the PMA
> that is defined and has no traps so these will all need synthesis by the
> PerfMgr.
Agree.
>
> -- Hal
>