Subject: report on fcic-mib and fa-mib

From: Kha Sin Teow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 17:57:14 -0800

Report on the FC-IC MIB and the FA MIB
=======================================
This report is to compare the two MIB definitions, pointing out where
are the similarities and the differences.
This will serve as an input to further discussions within the
SNIA FC-IC Working Group and the IETF IPFC Working Group.

Terms and References
====================
For brevity, the following terms are used in the discussion:
o FCIC-MIB	The document that contains the outcome of the FC-IC
		Working	Group and the latest version is informally
		referred to as 
		  <draft-ietf-ipfc-interconnect-mib-01c.txt>.
		It has been posted to the reflectors,
		  [email-masked]
		and
		  [email-masked].
		This version has not been submitted to IETF yet.

o FA-MIB	The Internet Draft,
		  <draft-blumenau-fcmgmt-int-mib-00.txt>,
		that was submitted to IETF on Feb 19, 1999, by
		S. Bluemenau on behalf of the Fibre Alliance.

o FCICWG	The FC-IC Working Group

Goals
=====
The primary objective of FCICWG was to define a framework MIB for the
Fibre Channel InterConnect - which includes switches, hubs, and WAN
tunnel bridge. The near term emphasis is on common Interconnect
configuration management and the InterConnect topology. This is to
maximize interoperability and a common framework between SAN Management
Station and elements that make up the InterConnect.

The FA-MIB is to define
  "a framework MIB that will provide an integrated management
environment
   for the enterprise customer.
   An enterprise class storage network is comprised of elements 
   (i.e., hubs, switches, converters, gateways, and HBAs) that are
   developed by many different vendors. The large number of vendors 
   that can exist in a storage network makes mangement a very hard 
   and complicated problem. The main goal of this document's MIB is 
   to enable interoperability among the various vendors involved in 
   the Fibre Channel marketplace."

To a large degree, the goals are similar.
This is not surprising considering that there is a big overlap of
participating companies in both groups.

First Level of Comparison and Constrast
=======================================
This comparison deals with the higher level models (abstraction)
and the MIB groups, without diving into the details,
unless where it's necessary.

Models
------
The FCIC-MIB defines the following notions:
o An Interconnect Element (or simply Element) is an entity represented
  by its management agent. It may have the capability to proxy on
  behalf of one or more other interconnectivity entity. It consists of
  one or more Enclosure.

o An Interconnect Enclosure (or simply Enclosure) represents a physical
  entity that contains one or more Interconnect Module.
  An enclosure may not be manageable directly but as part of an Element.
  (This allows for a non-manageable enclosure, such as a dumb hub,
  to be managed via a manageable hub; or some other proxy management
  scheme.)

o An Interconnect Module (or simply Module) represents a group of
  Interconnect ports within an Enclosure.
  The grouping may be physical or logical. An example of a physical
  group is a pluggable-card within an Enclosure.
  An example of a logical group is a group of proxied ports on an
  Enclosure that is not directly manageable.

o An Interconnect Port (or simply Port) is an entity that is used to
  connect to one or more Interconnect Enclosures or end devices.

The FA-MIB has the following notions:
o connectivity - similar to the FCIC-MIB Element, although there is no
  explicit definition.

o connectivity unit - similar to the FCIC-MIB Enclosure.

o port - similar to the FCIC-MIB Port.
There is no notion of Module.

MIB Groups
----------
The FA-MIB defines two Groups:
o Connectivity Unit Group, and
o Trap Registration Group

The Connectivity Unit Group basically convers the following
sub-groupings:
o the connectivity level configuration and status information
o the connectivity unit level configuration and status
  - the Connectivity (unit) table
  - the Table of revisions for hardware and software elements
  - the Sensor Table
  - the Zone Table (still under discussion)
  - the Port Table
  - the Event Table
  - the Link Table (still under discussion)

The Trap Registration Group defines mainly a table of entries, each
represents a trap recipient's address and filter information.

Note that all variables are read-only.
Although this might be a practical consideration that SNMPv1 and
SNMPv2c are not secured, it is useful to include certain "control"
configuration in the definition such that when the security of the
manangement is addressed (e.g. a firewalled environment or private
manangement intranet),
the framework would have already provided a basic control function.

There is also no provision for a management station to configure the
Trap Registration table at present.

The FCIC-MIB currently defines the "Basic Package" and it covers
- the Enclosure table (similar to the Connectivity Unit Table);
  one notable difference is that the Enclosure table has a control
  MIB variable.
- the Module level configuration, status and control
- the Port level status and control
- the Topology table (similar to the Link Table in FA-MIB)
- the Sensor table (proposed and under discussion)
- Trap Destination Information (proposed and under discussion)

There is no Event and Zone management in FCIC-MIB at present.

A notable difference between the (FA-MIB) Link Table and the
(FCIC-MIB) Topology Table is that the Link Table contains links that
have local connections, whereas the Topology Table allows for links
among other enclosures.
On the other hand, by definition of the connectivity unit type, the
Link Table may also contain links between an Nx_Port and an Fx_Port
which the Topology Table currently excludes (implicitly).

It is not clear what "proxy domains" mean in the Link Table.
My interpretation is that it is similar to the notion of Element in
FCIC-MIB.

The FCIC-MIB Trap Destination allows for an appropriate management
station to configure a new trap destination, which is not available
in FA-MIB.

Traps
-----
The FCIC-MIB has 4 traps:
o enclosureStatusChange,
o moduleStatusChange,
o portStateChange, and
o sensorStateChange.

The FA-MIB has 3 traps:
o connUnitStatusChange,
o connUnitTopologyChange, and
o connUnitEventTrap

The connUnitStatusChange is similar to enclosureStatusChange.
The connUnitTopologyChange is somewhat similar to the portStateChange.
The connUnitEventTrap probably convers the sensorStateChange.

High Level Conclusions
----------------------
There are more overlaps than differences between the two definition.
The major differences are:
(1) the FCIC-MIB has the notion of Module which is missing in FA-MIB
(2) the FA-MIB has no control manangement
(3) the FA-MIB extend the framework to include HBA and gateways.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kha Sin Teow				[email-masked]
Brocade Communications Systems		Tel: 408-487-8000
1901 Guadalupe Parkway			Fax: 408-487-8001
San Jose, CA 95131			http://www.Brocade.Com
----------------------------------------------------------------------