Re: draft-ops-endpoint-mib-08.txt

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

         Hi Juergen,

>I think the "problem" here is that the InetAddress* definitions try to
>encourage MIB definitions that support new address types if there is
>ever a need for it. Now, you want to say that IPv4 and IPv6 is fine,
>similar IP addresses may also be fine, but something like DNS names is
>not OK. Sure, you can write in the DESCRIPTION clause that a dns(?) is
>not allowed for the InetAddressType object. But what if there is
>another "unwanted" definition in the future?

         That is a good point. What I can say then is that ONLY v4 and
v6 IP addresses are allowed.

>Again, why does a DNS name not work?

         Because MPLS/RSVP does not use DNS names to
DNS names to signal MPLS tunnels.

>BTW, which document are we
>talking about? I found <draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-04.txt> and its usage
>of InetAddressIPv4 and InetAddressIPv6 is actually what we tried to
>avoid.

         This is one instance of where we use the InetAddressIPv4
type. However, the current thread is referencing a forthcomming
version of draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib-03.txt  The current version
of the mplsTunnelEntry is indexed by basically two integers.
To uniquely identify an MPLS tunnel, we need to also use the
src IP address of where the tunnel originated.

>Note that this construction also won't work with non-global
>IPv6 addresses.

         I don't understand. Please explain why it will not work.
Please also recommend how we can make it work.

         --Tom



>/js
>
>--
>Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
><schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
>Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
>Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>