Browse Prior Art Database

Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol (RFC1028)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000001832D
Original Publication Date: 1987-Nov-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-15
Document File: 35 page(s) / 40K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

J. Davin: AUTHOR [+3]

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC1028: DOI

Abstract

This memo defines a simple application-layer protocol by which management information for a gateway may be inspected or altered by remote users. This proposal is intended only as an interim response to immediate gateway monitoring needs.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 5% of the total text.

Network Working Group J. Davin Request for Comments: 1028 Proteon, Inc. J. Case University of Tennessee at Knoxville M. Fedor Cornell University M. Schoffstall Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute November 1987

A Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol

1. Status of this Memo

This document is being distributed to members of the Internet community in order to solicit their reactions to the proposals contained in it. While the issues discussed may not be directly relevant to the research problems of the Internet, they may be interesting to a number of researchers and implementors.

This memo defines a simple application-layer protocol by which management information for a gateway may be inspected or altered by logically remote users.

This proposal is intended only as an interim response to immediate gateway monitoring needs while work on more elaborate and robust designs proceeds with the care and deliberation appropriate to that task. Accordingly, long term use of the mechanisms described here should be seriously questioned as more comprehensive proposals emerge in the future. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

2. Protocol Design Strategy

The proposed protocol is shaped in large part by the desire to minimize the number and complexity of management functions realized by the gateway itself. This goal is attractive in at least four respects:

(1) The development cost for gateway software necessary to support the protocol is accordingly reduced.

(2) The degree of management function that is remotely supported is accordingly increased, thereby admitting fullest use of internet resources in the management task.

Davin, Case, Fedor and Schoffstall [Page 1]

RFC 1028 Simple Gateway Monitoring November 1987

(3) The degree of management function that is remotely supported is accordingly increased, thereby imposing the fewest possible restrictions on the form and sophistication of management tools.

(4) A simplified set of management functions is easily understood and used by developers of gateway management tools.

A second design goal is that the functional paradigm for monitoring and control be sufficiently extensible to accommodate additional, possibly unanticipated aspects of gateway operation.

A third goal is that the design be, as much as possible, independent of the architecture and mechanisms of particular hosts or particular gateways.

Consistent with the foregoing design goals are a number of decisions regarding the overall form of the protocol design.

One such decision is to model all gateway management functions as alterations or inspections of various parameter values. By this model, a protocol entity on a logically remote host (possibly the gateway itself) interacts with a protocol entity resident on the gateway in order to alter or retrieve named portions (variables) of the gateway state. This design decision has at least two positive consequences:

(1) It has the effect of limiting the number of essential management functions realized by the gateway...

Processing...
Loading...