Subject: Re: RFC2558 sonetMediumLoopbackConfig

From: "Mike Symonds" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:56:30 +0000

kaj,

Thanks for your reply. I am now coming back to my Sonet sub-agent design after
the Christmas break.

I am having trouble designing the implementation actions for SNMP operations on
this object.

Are the loopback states mutually exclusive, or can you have both Facility and
Terminal loopbacks operating simultaneously? If not then this object should have
been an enumerated integer taking one of four values.

Does the Network Manager set the Other bit if there are other (application
specific) loopbacks operating, or is this effectively read-only and just an
indication of their presence?

The other loopback(s) in our application are controlled by objects in our
enterprise-specific MIB.

If the Other bit is writable, what happens when the Manager unsets this bit? Are
these other loopbacks expected to be automatically removed and their object
states adjusted accordingly?

I'm confused.

Mike

Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]> on 24/11/2000 15:24:20

                                                              

 To:      Mike Symonds/MAIN/MC1@MCMAIN                        
                                                              
 cc:                                                          

 Subject: Re: RFC2558 sonetMediumLoopbackConfig               

At 11:06 AM 11/24/00 +0000, you wrote:

>I'm working on the SNMP sub-agent to handle the sonetMIB, and I'm puzzled
>by the
>specification of the sonetMediumLoopbackConfig object.
>The choice of a bit map implies that the various loopback states are not
>mutually exclusive, in which case why is it necessary to set bit0 to indicate
>that no other bits are set? A value of zero for the OCTET would indicate that
>there are no loopbacks in operation.
>Regards,
>           Mike Symonds (Marconi Communications, Borehamwood, UK)

Mike, you're not the first one stumbling over this;
it seems that the BITS syntax was an unfortunate choice;
reasons for the choice were historical.
setting the first bit means that none of the other
bits should be set.

can you copy any further comments on this to
[email-masked] which
is the discussion list for this topic.

kaj

---------------------------------------
Kaj Tesink
[email-masked]
Tel. (732) 758-5254
Fax  (732) 758-2269
Telcordia Technologies
331 Newman Springs Rd
Red Bank, NJ 07701
USA
---------------------------------------

---

From: Glenn McGuire <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 12:59:51 -0500

I had similar concerns.  I have (so far) decided that it made most sense to
implement only the 2 basic loopback types through this MIB, and to disallow
writes to 'other'.

This means that I can't deprecate my enterprise mib variable if I'd still
like to support a bidirectional loopback.

Any hints as to the intents of the author would be appreciated.
	-gm

Glenn McGuire
Software Engineer
Core Routing
Lucent Technologies Internetworking Systems

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Symonds [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:57 AM
To: Kaj Tesink
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: RFC2558 sonetMediumLoopbackConfig

kaj,

Thanks for your reply. I am now coming back to my Sonet sub-agent design
after
the Christmas break.

I am having trouble designing the implementation actions for SNMP operations
on
this object.

Are the loopback states mutually exclusive, or can you have both Facility
and
Terminal loopbacks operating simultaneously? If not then this object should
have
been an enumerated integer taking one of four values.

If the Other bit is writable, what happens when the Manager unsets this bit?
Are
these other loopbacks expected to be automatically removed and their object
states adjusted accordingly?

I'm confused.

Mike

 

                                                              
 cc:                                                          

kaj