RE: [VRRP] MIB work

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kalyan.Tata@nokia.com [mailto:Kalyan.Tata@nokia.com]
> > Sent: woensdag 3 september 2003 4:01
> > To: bwijnen@lucent.com; vrrp@ietf.org
> > Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [VRRP] MIB work
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Bret, 
> > 	Thanks for the pointer. Browsing through the ID, it looks like they 
> > 	are proposing two different MIBs too. I contacted the authors about
> > 	their input on the pending one MIB vs two MIBs issue. 
> > 	
> I do not thing that they are proposing two MIB modules.
> They say:
>   -   Thus, changes will be required for this MIB to interoperate in an
>       IPv6 environment.
>   -   The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should 
>       be defined.
> 
> Maybe you conclude from that second bullet that they propose a 2nd MIB.
> But I do not think that is the intention. A "new mib module" could
> either be:
>   - a complete replacement that includes both IPv4 and IPv6 support
>   - a complete replacement that adds IPv6 support to current module
>   - indeed a 2nd MIB module for IPv6 only.
> 
> It is up to the WG (with MIB dcotor help maybe) to decide what the
> best path forward would be.

I totally agree with the last paragraph -- it may be that Kalyan read a 
bit too much in the words in the survey document :-).

The wording of the document is not always optimal. _We_ (as in, v6ops
folks) don't know what's best for VRRP; we just try to fumble with words
and say that there seems to be a problem with VRRP MIB.

Whichever path you (VRRP WG) choose to take is probably best.  Please 
send substitute text for the document when the path is chosen.

Thanks,

 Pekka
 as v6ops co-chair