[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: INET-Addresses not used in MPLS MIB Modules

To: "Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: INET-Addresses not used in MPLS MIB Modules
From: Mike MacFaden <mrm@riverstonenet.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:36:17 -0800
Cc: mreview@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155D6C4BA@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>; from bwijnen@lucent.com on Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:12:02AM +0100
References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155D6C4BA@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

>> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Mike MacFaden wrote:
>> > >I think the two that have a problem right now are:
>> > >
>> > >   draft-ietf-tewg-mib-03.txt
>> > >   draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib-09.txt
>> > 
>> > FWIW, these two MIB modules overlap in what they manage.
>> [ ... ]
>> > In terms of real products: cisco will implement the former 
>> > and Juniper the latter.

My statement is incorrect.
Juniper will implement the former. Kireeti is the author of tewg te mib
and Tom is co-author of the mpls te mib.

Bert, I've pulled these drafts from ietf.org: 
  draft-ietf-tewg-mib-03.txt
  draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib-09.txt
  draft-ietf-mpls-tc-mib-05.txt
  draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mib-09.txt
  draft-ietf-mpls-ftn-mib-05.txt
  draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-09.tx

and will post an updated review by next week. 

Mike

References:
- RE: INET-Addresses not used in MPLS MIB Modules
  - From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>

Prev by Date: FW: Ipcdn - draft agenda for interim meeting for your review
Next by Date: RE: INET-Addresses not used in MPLS MIB Modules
Previous by thread: RE: INET-Addresses not used in MPLS MIB Modules
Next by thread: RE: INET-Addresses not used in MPLS MIB Modules
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread