RE: [nv-l] SNMPv3 - was "Enhancement Requests"

2004-08-05 09:39:31
Subject: RE: [nv-l] SNMPv3 - was "Enhancement Requests"
From: "Barr, Scott" <Scott_Barr AT csgsystems DOT com>
To: <nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 08:27:17 -0500
Joe, I'm not disputing that no vendor has "everything". And again, I'm just doing my semi-annual rain dance to try and get some attention from IBM to expand and enhance the design and development areas for NetView. There is the appearance, justified or not, of apathetic management at IBM. When you talk to people in support or development, they lament the situation. You can tell they would love to do more - if they could, but have no resources.
As I have stated many times in this forum, sometimes, it is necessary and desirable to re-invent the wheel. There are inherent issues with NetView (and as I said TEC also) where it is obvious that significant change is necessary. Particularly in the area of single threaded architecture. When I started working with NetView on the distributed side (I was a mainframe NetView guy also), the networks were flat ethernet and token ring segments with low speed links. Routers were small and simple, switches did not exist and only the smallest minority of traffic was TCP/IP in corporate America. The internet was not an avenue for commercial product deployment. Ancillary devices like UPS systems and printers and PBX systems were not only non-SNMP manageable, they weren't even hooked to the network. Not any more. Now, virtually everything is attached to the network, virutally everyone is using TCP/IP, we not only have high speed links we have 100mb and 1000mb ethernet and routers with hundreds of interfaces. In corporate America, we have gone from a reactive approach (letting users call the help desk) to the proactive model (driven by things like Sarbannes Oxley legislation [sorry if the spelling is wrong] and overly demanding service level agreements. For goodness sakes we have service level agreements covering products we deliver OVER the internet!
And yet, the core architecture of NetView is virtually identical to what it was 10 years. In software, evolution is key, and if you don't agree, you merely need to look at Microsoft Windows and the IBM mainframe products to see examples of technology that is fundamentally different than it was 10 years ago because the market place pointed that way and IBM and Microsoft recognized it. The development effort on the NetView product has not kept pace with the advancement of technology and the changes in corporate culture and now it looks, to the untrained eye anyway, to be an aging dinosaur amongst a lot of young products that are loaded with functionality (albeit they all come with their own support and inter-operability issues).
And the most infuriating aspect of it is that when you try and raise the red flag, when you try and get the ear of IBM executives, you fall short and are typically disappointed. Thats why I say the senior managment seems oblivious or apathetic. Maybe it's time for NetView to be open source (probably can't do that due to HP code).
Look, I have been accused of bleeding blue for a long time. I *DO* believe in IBM as a company - I think they represent all that can be right about a technology company. But I can tell you also that NetView is NOT meeting the demands a typical corporate network. Everyone wants centralized management. Everyone wants integrated systems, problem management, fault isolation, escalation, automation - all have to be tied together. We have thrown big hardware at NetView and we could throw even more, but I still can't get around performance issues related to single threaded automation. And I can't continue to endorse a platform that just doesn't seem to be going anywhere technologically.
Maybe this seems like I'm overstating my opinion, and maybe things are going on behind the scenes I don't know about, but right now, I don't see a light at the end of a tunnel, not even an oncoming train.

From: owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com [mailto:owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com] On Behalf Of Joe Fernandez
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 6:41 PM
To: nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com
Subject: RE: [nv-l] SNMPv3 - was "Enhancement Requests"

Hi Scott,

You buy the SNMP Security Pack for NetView from SNMP Research.

No vendor today - aside possibly from Microsoft - would claim to have products to meet all of its customers' requirements. Hence the major vendors have Partner Developer Programs under which they encourage Independent Software Vendors - like SNMP Research and us - to develop and market complementary products to fill gaps.   

As I said, I am only addressing  one point in your posting - support for SNMPv3.

At 07:51 AM 04-08-04 -0500, "Barr, Scott" <Scott_Barr AT csgsystems DOT com> wrote:
That SNMPv3 support is via a purchased product? Or is that add-on free? I'm not sure I consider that part of NetView. I was aware of that package.

From: owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com [mailto:owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com] On Behalf Of Joe Fernandez
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:55 PM
To: nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com
Subject: Re: [nv-l] Enhancement Requests
Hi Scott,

Just on one of your points....
At 09:22 AM 03-08-04 -0500, "Barr, Scott" <Scott_Barr AT csgsystems DOT com> wrote:

If it takes 18 months to get a fairly simple change (from a feature point of view) to the "review" stage, then how long will it take for support for SNMPv3?
I believe SNMPv3 is provided for NetView by the SNMP Security Pack add-on from SNMP Research.

And, while I don't speak for IBM, this may be related to what you said later......
Look, we all understand that IBM generally gives software away at very reasonable prices and earns their revenues based on service contracts.

Joe Fernandez
Kardinia Software
jfernand AT kardinia DOT com
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>