[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: errors in draft-ietf-te-mib-12.txt
Sorry for the delay. Answers inline.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET] On Behalf
>Of Stefan Winter
>Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 3:46 AM
>To: mpls@UU.NET; iesg@ietf.org
>Subject: errors in draft-ietf-te-mib-12.txt
>
>
>Hello,
>
>sorry for bothering you again. But during the implementation
>of the MPLS MIBs
>I came across some more inconsistencies...
>
>1) concerning data types: mplsTunnelIndex is of syntax
>mplsTunnelIndex,
>derived from UNSIGNED32. But the corresponding scalar
>mplsTunnelIndexNext is
>of type IndexIntegerNextFree, derived from INTEGER32. I don't
>think it is a good idea to have different data types for these two.
It was recommended that we used IndexIntegerNextFree
as the basis for this object. I have constrained the
values to being only positive and 0 to conincide with
the mplsTunnelIndex value and 0 as defined in the indexNext
object:
mplsTunnelIndexNext OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX IndexIntegerNextFree (0..65535)
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"This object contains an unused value for
mplsTunnelIndex, or a zero to indicate
that none exist. Negative values are not allowed,
as they do not correspond to valid values of
mplsTunnelIndex.
Note that this object offers an unused value
for an mplsTunnelIndex value at the ingress
side of a tunnel. At other LSRs the value
of mplsTunnelIndex SHOULD be taken from the
value signaled by the MPLS signaling protocol.
"
::= { mplsTeObjects 1 }
>2) DESCRIPTION clause of mplsTunnelIndex states "should obtain
>new values for
>row creation in this table by reading
>mplsTunnelIndexNextFree". The scalar in
>question is not called mplsTunnelIndexNextFree but mplsTunnelIndexNext.
Good catch; fixed:
mplsTunnelIndex OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX MplsTunnelIndex
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Uniquely identifies a set of tunnel instances
between a pair of ingress and egress LSRs.
Managers should obtain new values for row
creation in this table by reading
mplsTunnelIndexNext. When
the MPLS signalling protocol is rsvp(2) this value
SHOULD be equal to the value signaled in the
Tunnel Id of the Session object. When the MPLS
signalling protocol is crldp(3) this value
SHOULD be equal to the value signaled in the
LSP ID."
::= { mplsTunnelEntry 1 }
>BTW, I never got a reply to my comments in message
>http://cell.onecall.net/mhonarc/mpls/2003-Aug/msg00105.html
>I hope it didn't get lost...
Sorry. I believe this was the message in question:
Hello,
there is an inconsistency in the MIB definition of mplsTunnelHopTable in
the
current draft of MPLS-TE-STD-MIB.
The DESCRIPTION clause of mplsTunnelHopTable claims that each row has
two
indexes, mplsTunnelHopListIndex (Index 1) and mplsTunnelHopIndex (Index
2).
But the INDEX clause of mplsTunnelHopEntry has three indexes,
mplsTunnelHopListIndex (Index 1)
mplsTunnelHopPathOptionIndex (Index 2)
mplsTunnelHopIndex (Index 3)
The DESCRIPTION clause of mplsTunnelHopTable needs to be updated to
reflect
the correct indexing and should explain the secondry index
mplsTunnelHopPathOptionIndex.
I have corrected this in version -13.
--Tom