I'm using SNMP to enquire the status of a certain make of printer.
For example,the status of make1 printer has an OID '1',
I want to know if this OID will, for example, in a make2 printer, remain the same as make1.
This question is probably better suited to SuperUser than Stack Overflow. However, the answer is "it depends". There are many IETF standard MIBs, which usually vendors endeavor to implement if they existed the vendor was aware of them at the time the device's agent was implemented. In such cases, these will be the same from one make to the next if both vendors implement those standard MIBs. Vendors may also have their own enterprise-specific MIBs that will not be implemented in different vendors' devices.
There is an IETF standard Printer MIB, that you will likely find implemented in just about any SNMP-capable printer on the market, but I assume printers were just being used as an example for the sake of your question.
Related
I am designing a Linux device that will communication with a windows host via CDC-NCM. As this is intended only for point to point communication I don't need a unique EUI-48 address. I intend to use a hard coded value on every device. I do not want to purchase an IEEE MA-S assignment for this. Is there a IEEE standards compliant or at least a generally accepted practice for choosing an EUI-48 in scenarios like this?
Edit: Would is using a LAA Unicast address a generally accepted practice for this sort of situation?
In International Patient Summary (IPS), how is it expected to uniquely identify a cross-border Patient?
To elaborate, IATA has a way to track all passengers across the globe. How can the healthcare systems do that?
I'm unable to figure this from hl7 documentation and implementation guides. Any help is appreciated.
That's a good question. There certainly isn't anything like a "global MPI" that's available, of course, and I think your question fairly points out that we haven't explicitly provided a solution for this in the IPS and our other HL7 specifications. For "international" use in the patient summary and specifically for supporting cross (national) border patient care, I don't think that we can give an absolutely definitive answer, but I think that there are some reasonable ways that we should be able to deal with this issue. I'm thinking of two in particular at the moment. The first is that in cases where there is dedicated organization and infrastructure (I'm thinking of something like the European cross-border services) then it may well be possible to provide some type of MPI service(s) that can establish and verify identity across the jurisdictional boundaries (and I'm not saying that for sure this actually exists in Europe or anywhere else, but just that it may be possible to do). The second, which I expect will turn out to be the more common and useful case overall, is that the patient is the ultimate owner of his or her data, so if the patient transports and provides the data directly to the receiving clinician (e.g., via their mobile device) then that should be more than sufficient to establish the identity. In that case the provenance and reliability of the data may still need to be considered, but that is a different question. Hopefully that may help a little! It is something that I agree we probably will need to address further in future versions of the IPS.
Rob
Is there an option for time-synchronization e.g. IEEE AVB/TSN of wireless nodes (IEEE 802.11 stations) within the inet framework?
And if so, how is the resource reservation realized on the medium access level?
The point coordination function (PCF) is still not implemented so far: https://github.com/inet-framework/inet/blob/master/src/inet/linklayer/ieee80211/mac/coordinationfunction/Pcf.h#L40
2020-04-21 UPDATE:
Avnu has a white paper on the concept: https://avnu.org/wireless-tsn-paper/
Avnu Alliance members... wrote the Avnu Alliance Wireless TSN – Definitions, Use Cases & Standards Roadmap white paper in an effort to generate awareness and start defining work required in Avnu to enable wireless TSN extensions in alignment with wired TSN systems and operation models.
2018-04-03 UPDATE:
IEEE Std. 802.1AS-2011 (gPTP) has a clause 12 titled "Media-dependent layer specification for IEEE 802.11 links." So, yes, it seems time synchronization is possible over WIFI, and is in fact defined in an IEEE standard.
2017-12-13 UPDATE:
It looks like the OpenAvnu project has been working on this idea. Check out this pull request, which seems to implement the precision time-stamping required for AVB on a WIFI connection.
OpenAvnu Pull Request #734: "Added wireless timestamper and port code"
This should probably be asked in multiple questions, with each question relating to the implementation of one of the core AVB/TSN protocols on a WIFI (802.11) network. Audio video bridging (AVB) and time sensitive networking (TSN) are not IEEE standards or protocols. What we call AVB or TSN (I'm just going to use AVB from now on) is a singular name for the use and implementation of multiple IEEE standards in order to achieve real-time media transfer.
These core protocols are:
IEEE Std. 802.1BA-2011: Profiles and configurations of IEEE standards which define what an AVB endpoint or bridge needs to do. This is the closest we get to one single standard for AVB.
IEEE Std. 1722(-2016): A Layer 2 audio video transport protocol (AVTP)
IEEE Std. 1722.1(-2013): Audio video discover, enumeration, connection management and control (AVDECC) for 1722-based devices
IEEE Std. 802.1AS(-2011): Generalized precision time protocol (gPTP)
IEEE Std. 802.1Q(-2014): FQTSS and SRP
(note that according to the IEEE TSN webpage, currently published TSN-specific standards will be rolled into 802.1Q, so the list above should still be accurate)
Because stream reservation (SRP), timing (gPTP), and media transport (1722 or 1723) are independent, your question should probably be asking about them independently.
How can/should IEEE 802.1AS (gPTP) be implemented in a WIFI (802.11) network?
How can/should IEEE 802.1Q (SRP and FQTSS) be implemented in a WIFI network?
1. I have nowhere near the experience these standards developers have, and some of them have explored gPTP on WIFI extensively. The "how" of gPTP is well explained by Kevin Stanton of Intel here.
And for WIFI in particular, Norman Finn from Cisco had some notes on using gPTP with WIFI networks here.
I couldn't find anything that explicitly laid out how best to use/implement gPTP with WIFI. Ethernet is really where a lot of this is happening right now.
2. Craig Gunther from Harman says:
Simply implement[ing] the SRP control protocol without performing the related reservation actions. ... 802.11ak along with 802.1Qbz may make this much simpler. .... 802.11ac and 802.11ad have created some interesting new technologies that may help with reservations...
Source: http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/at-cgunther-srp-for-802-11-0114-v01.pdf
Personally, I feel like guaranteed latency and reliability are very hard to ask for with a network that has to do things like carrier-sense multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA), but that's just my inexperienced opinion. It certainly would be cool, but it seems very... challenging.
Over the past week or so I've spent time getting to know SNMP. I have quickly learnt that the bane of working with SNMP devices, to create simple monitoring tools, are the MIBs.
In my particular situation, Xerox aren't helpful with giving out MIBs so I'm left with thousands of unidentified objects when I perform a walk on a printer.
Many of these undescribed OIDs have values but of course I have no idea what they represent.
What are the typical procedures that's most successful in terms of results to resolve these unknown OIDs? I have time and the willingness to dig deeper but I'm just not sure where to start.
NB: I've already tried generic MIBs, and potential Xerox MIBs but all the descriptions seem very vague and don't explicitly indicate their purposes. This guy managed to identify a few in relation to the previously linked MIB but I have no idea how he worked it out because the description for those objects are ridiculously vague.
This is for a Python 2.7 script.
I'm second for checking sysORTable contents.
If that does not help you could try downloading as many MIBs as you can find and then load them all into snmpwalk (via -m ALL option) or do that for subsets of MIBs to conserve memory. Then walk your printer and see what MIBs are reported by snmpwalk.
If you could not load many MIBs into memory, I can propose a very peculiar approach.
You can take available MIB names from here, take latest development pysnmp/pysnmp-apps packages, then list all OIDs defines in each MIB:
$ snmptranslate.py -To XEROX-GENERAL-MIB::
.1.3.6.1.4.1.253.8.51
.1.3.6.1.4.1.253.8.51.1
.1.3.6.1.4.1.253.8.51.1.2
...
Once you know what OIDs are in what MIB, you could match OIDs you fetch from printer against OIDs found in MIBs. That way you figure what MIBs are implemented by your printer.
I would like to reproduce the experiment from Dr. Adrian Thompson, who used genetic algorithm to produce a chip (FPGA) which can distinguish between two different sound signals in a extreme efficient way. For more information please visit this link:
http://archive.bcs.org/bulletin/jan98/leading.htm
After some research I found this FPGA board:
http://www.terasic.com.tw/cgi-bin/page/archive.pl?Language=English&CategoryNo=167&No=836&PartNo=1
Is this board capable of reproducing Dr. Adrian Thompsons experiment or am I in need of another?
Thank you for your support.
In terms of programmable logic, the DE1-SoC is about ~20x bigger, and has ~70x as much embedded memory. Practically any modern FPGA is bigger than the "Xilinx XC6216" cited by his papers, as was linked to you in the other instance of this question you asked.
That said, most modern FPGAs don't allow for the same fine-granularity of configuration, as compared to older FPGAs - the internal routing and block structures are more complex, and FPGA vendors want to protect their products and compel you to use their CAD tools.
In short, yes, the DE1-SoC will be able to contain any design from 12+ years ago. As for replicating the specific functions, you should do some more research to determine if the methods used are still feasible with modern chips and CAD tools.
Edit:
user1155120 elaborated on the features of the XC6216 (see link below) that were of value to Thompson.
Fast Configuration: A larger device will generally take longer to configure, as you have to send more configuration data. That said, I/O interfaces are faster than they were 15 years ago, so it depends on your definition of "fast".
Reconfiguration: Cyclone V chips (like the one in the DE1-SoC) do support partial reconfiguration, but the subscription version of the Quartus II software is required, in addition to a separate license to support PR. I don't believe it supports wildcard reconfiguration, though I could be mistaken.
Memory-Mapped Addressing: The DE1-SoC's internal data can be access through the USB Blaster interface. However, this requires using the SystemConsole on the host PC, so it's not a direct access.