el managed objects. There is also an entity called manager of manager (MoM) according to the OSI model. The MoM is expected to process data that is managed by multiple managers; that is, the MoM must be able to view managed objects from multiple community. That is, if manager-1 can view community-1 and manager-2 can view community-2, then an MoM can view both community-1 and community-2. 14.3 SNMPv2 The major weakness in SNMPvl was the lack of an elaborate security framework. The main intent of having SNMPv2 was to overcome this security issue. While SNMPvl and SNMPv3 are IETF standards, SNMPv2 did not get fully standard- ized and only draft versions are available. In discussions and NMS product specifi- cations on SNMPv2 there are four popular versions that come up. They are: SNMPv2P: This was introduced as improvement for SNMPvl and is based on RFC 1441 and 1452. Unlike community-based security in SNMPvl, the SNMPv2P had a party-based security system. There were many controversies on the administrative and security framework specified in this release and many raised the concern that it was complex and would not be easy for net- work administrators to adopt. SNMPv2C: To address the issues in the security framework offered by SNMPv2P, SNMPv2c was suggested that uses community-based security similar to SNMPvl. It was proposed under RFC 1901 through 1908. SNMPv2U: This version was defined as an alternate security model for party- based SNMPv2P. It was proposed in RFC 1909 and has the user-based secu- rity model defined in RFC 1910. This version had minimum security and was mainly targeted for small agents. SNMPv2*: This is a commercial version that is more refined that SNMPv2U and implements a security system that can be used for large networks. Two important aspects that made this version suitable for commercial use is the consideration for scalability and some level of provisioning capability to per- form remote configuration of security. Though SNMPv2 had enhanced security compared to SNMPvl and SNMPv2* provided