Re: Peer twiddling

Adrian Chadd wrote:

> *nod* So should they be formatted to be read by a computer, and have
> some external program/programs handle converting them to other
> formats?

For which SNMP does a very good job with only a minimal amount of coding.

> What about comments on the original idea? :-) The guy who I'm doing it
> for would like it to appear in -HEAD and then 2.4 so he doesn't have to
> run a "custom squid" (I like people like this. :-)

I assume this is the peer on/off toggle you were talking about?

If done in todays interfaces, my vote is the cache_object interface as
indicated earlier.

If a new interface for active control is to be set up, my votes is in order of
preference:
* UNIX socket command channel
* SNMP

most of the -k commands we have today does not belong in SNMP I think. These
are mostly of interest to the host, not your NMS. Some fits very well in a
UNIX socket control channel.

The peer on/off function also fits well in SNMP. It is of interest to your
average network operator, and SNMP is well known. It is only a pity that most
NMS systems is somewhat closed and does not allow the operator to easily
extend them with new SNMP mibs and representations thereof. SNMP is defenitely
easier to integrade in the average NMS than telnet or HTTP interfaces.

--
Henrik
Received on Sat Sep 15 2001 - 09:34:58 MDT