Re: SMICng compile error on LMP MIB 7

["Martin Dubuc" <dubuc.consulting@rogers.com>]

Bert,

The definition of this bit field was based on the specification of the
Verify Transport Mechanism field in the LMP draft. This field is a 2 byte
bit field (16 bits). This field expresses the transport mechanisms supported
by an implementation (multiple bits could be set to indicate multiple
mechanisms supported). This field is technology dependent, but so far, only
SONET/SDH standards have defined values for this field (see [LMP-TEST]). In
the spec, there is a special value "payload" value defined as the most
significant bit value that is supposed to apply to all technologies. I
actually had misinterpreted the spec and coded the bit field as a 32 bit
field. This explains why I used bit 31 for this bit. In any case, I wanted
to use the same value as the spec in the bit field definition for the
"payload" value. However, I don't think it really makes a difference which
bit is used to represent the "payload" value. Bit 0 would be as good as bit
15 (or 31) for this purpose and would allow all bits to be contiguous. I
have already digressed for the SONET/SDH test spec by keeping the currently
defined SONET/SDH bits contiguous. In [LMP-TEST], there are five values
specified over 8 bits (3 bits are reserved). I could have mapped the bits in
the bit field the same way (for instance DCC section overhead bytes on bit
1), but I think it is better to have them all contiguous, the main reason
being that it is quite possible that other technologies will reuse the same
bits. This would prevent us from using the bit fields specified in the
standards because they are likely to be overloaded. In the end, the
implementor will have to perform some mapping.

I can update the MIB to reflect this.

Martin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "Ccamp-wg (E-mail)" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 2:22 PM
Subject: SMICng compile error on LMP MIB 7


> The SMICng compile tells me:
>
>   E: f(lmp.mi2), (1430,22) Named bits for BITS must be in contiguous
positions
>
> So why is there a gap ??
>
>
> Thanks,
> Bert
>
>
>