RE: INET-Addresses not used in MPLS MIB Modules

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

They not only use AS numbers, the also use LSPIDs
and Unnumbered Interface numbers.

Further inline

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> Sent: maandag 3 februari 2003 12:30
> To: bwijnen@lucent.com
> Cc: mreview@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: INET-Addresses not used in MPLS MIB Modules
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:
> 
> Bert> For various cases, they cannot use the INET-ADDRESS-MIB
> Bert> definitions. 
> 
> I would like to know the reasons why they can't use the
> INET-ADDRESS-MIB definitions. Except that they broke several things,
> the definitions are not that much different. OK, it looks like they
> want to treat AS numbers the same as addresses. But since you can't do
> unions of a arbitrary SNMP base types, this won't work anyway. If they
> need such a union, they have to use multiple objects anyway and in
> this case the INET-ADDRESS-MIB definitions should be OK.
> 
I don't get this... are you saying they cannot do this with their
proposed TeHopAddressType and TeHopAddress ??

> (And it somehow strikes me to consider an AS number an address
> anyway.)
> 
Well, same for Unnum and LSPID... so the use of term "Address" 
is maybe not the best choice. Maybe it is just TeHopIdentifier
and sometimes that is an address, sometimes it is something else?

What would be your recommendation to them?

They have been struggling with this for a while. I believe you have
been discussing some of this with Kireeti in the past. I have them 
convinced that they should use a common mechanism/approach for all
of their MPLS related MIBs (as opposed to doing things different
in every MIB Module). But they want to move forward, so if we have
an issue, can we then recommend something better. I am not sure
I have a better solution for them. Do you?

Bert
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder    
> <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>
>