RE: INET-Addresses not used in MPLS MIB Modules

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

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> Sent: maandag 3 februari 2003 13:41
> To: bwijnen@lucent.com
> Cc: mreview@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: INET-Addresses not used in MPLS MIB Modules
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:
> 
> >> 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.
> >> 
> 
> Bert> I don't get this... are you saying they cannot do this with
> Bert> their proposed TeHopAddressType and TeHopAddress ??
> 
> TeHopAddressAS2 is an INTEGER not an OCTET STRING as someone else
> already noted.
> 
Yes, that was pointed out and that will need to be fixed.
But once they fix them all in OCTET STRING, then I do not see
the problem yet.

> >> (And it somehow strikes me to consider an AS number an address
> >> anyway.)
> 
> Bert> Well, same for Unnum and LSPID... so the use of term "Address"
> Bert> is maybe not the best choice. Maybe it is just TeHopIdentifier
> Bert> and sometimes that is an address, sometimes it is something
> Bert> else?
> 
> Bert> What would be your recommendation to them?
> 
> Looking at draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib-09.txt, I do not see the TCs
> responsible for this thread. Perhaps I have no clue where to look at.
> 
The best place to look at is draft-ietf-tewg-mib-03.txt
which was Kireeti's work and which he suggested to the MPLS
folk to adopt so that they could use similar thing in the
mpls-te-mib. So since they are getting ready to do so, I
started checking with the mreviewers team what would be the 
issues we need to raise.
  
> Anyway, if I assume that draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib-09.txt is not totally
> off wrt. what is on the table, then it looks like they want to
> identify an MPLS tunnel hop and such a hop can be identified by
> various things (IP addresses, AS numbers, ...). If this understanding
> is correct, then they should introduce a naming space for tunnel hops,
> e.g. MplsTunnelHopIndex and MplsTunnelHopIndexOrZero TCs and have
> sparse mapping table indexed by an MplsTunnelHopIndex object which
> uses multiple objects of various types to indicate how the tunnel is
> identified. Once this in in place, they can simply refer to tunnel
> hops by using MplsTunnelHopIndex or MplsTunnelHopIndexOrZero.
> 
I can try to present this solution to them (unless you want to do so
yourself). By the way, Mike KacFaden, are you reading? You are
their MIB doctor, remember?

> Bert> They have been struggling with this for a while. I believe you
> Bert> have been discussing some of this with Kireeti in the past. 
> 
> We had some email exchanges - not sure how much this was discussion in
> the sense that we managed to understand each other.
> 
> Bert> I have them convinced that they should use a common
> Bert> mechanism/approach for all of their MPLS related MIBs (as
> Bert> opposed to doing things different in every MIB Module). But they
> Bert> want to move forward, so if we have an issue, can we then
> Bert> recommend something better. I am not sure I have a better
> Bert> solution for them. Do you?
> 
> We have the typical communication problem here. I am not an MPLS
> expert and becoming one is not high on my agenda this week.

Well, neitehr am I, but we (or at least I, and I hope with the
help of the MIB Doctor team) need to guide them to the best 
solution anyway.

> Anyway, how many MPLS MIBs are there? I found:
> 
> draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-mib-04.txt.gz
> draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-01.txt.gz
> draft-ietf-mpls-ftn-mib-05.txt.gz
> draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mib-09.txt.gz
> draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-09.txt.gz
> draft-ietf-mpls-tc-mib-05.txt.gz
> draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib-09.txt.gz
> 
> Perhaps the first thing would be to post which MIBs have a problem
> with the INET-ADDRESS-MIB to get a picture where to start. ;-)
> 
I think the two that have a problem right now are:

   draft-ietf-tewg-mib-03.txt
   draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib-09.txt

Others are (I fear) around the corner and coming soon.
  draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-00.txt
(has expired now).

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