I would hope that they would continue to work on providing the reporting
that everyone seems to agree is lacking but, to me, and based on past
experience with Cisco and many other vendors, that is the long term fix
that won't happen too quickly.  Some of us need supported SNMP access to
the boxes now and I don't see why that would need to take a long time to
provide, or that providing it would necessarily take away from
development time for the other.  Presumably, now that this is a Cisco
product, they have resources to commit to development of the product and
they can afford to work on more than one thing at a time.  I didn't
understand anyone to be suggesting that the two are or should be
mutually exclusive goals.

Thanks,

---
Jason Richardson
Manager, IT Security and Client Development
Enterprise Systems Support
Northern Illinois University

>>> [log in to unmask] 10/17/2005 1:41 PM >>>
It seemed to me that my concerns were being subsumed within the SNMP
requests
discussion; I wanted to be clear that there are two separate threads
going on,
here, perhaps for two communities, yes.

The "turnkey solution" has always been rather clumsy, enabling SNMP
will not fix
that. If development emphasis heads in that direction, I'm left with
the
difficult interface I have. Surely they can work on both?

--Cal Frye, Network Administrator, Oberlin College
   www.ouuf.org, www.calfrye.com 
   Say Yes Twice for Oberlin Schools!   www.oberlinyesyes.com 

  "What is more immoral than war?" --Marquis de Sade.


Jason Richardson wrote:
> How does
> enabling SNMP for some of us to access that additional information
> negatively impact you or others who are not inclined to do so?