From: Rohit Dube (rohitXEBEO.COM)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 14:40:03 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:26:17 -0400 Acee Lindem writes:
=>> As Don suggested, these might be candidates for a new configuration objects
=>> in the protocol MIBs. Bandwidth, Admin Groups, etc. are covered in the
=>> TE MIB. draft-ietf-tewg-mib-04.txt
=>
=>Okay - I'm not strongly opposed. However, I took a look at the
=>TE MIB (draft-ietf-tewg-mib-04.txt) and its tunnel table is relative
=>to a complete TE'ed path (e.g., LSP). Whereas, the OSPF TE stuff
=>applies to a specific interface. It almost seems to me like all this TE
=>stuff should be included or go in a separate MIB. The problem with
=>included it is that the extensions go on an on.

FWIW, I would be mildly opposed to putting the TE stuff into the MIB
for exactly the reasons that Acee suggests :
o if we decide to work on this, this should go into a separate MIB.
o TE extensions may go on for a while and we can't wait on these to
  push the ospf-mib-update through. For instance if the diffserv te
  work is standardized, there may be objects from there that would need
  to be pulled into such a MIB.

Regards,
--rohit.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]