Subject: [Ipoverib] Re: draft-ietf-ipoib-ibif-mib-01.txt

From: "Paceline Systems" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:40:41 -0500

Hi Sean and Bill,
There are two areas where the IETF and the IBTA are at somewhat at odds in
terms of what is mandatory and optional. The first is adminStatus in the
interface MIB which is R/W, but in the IB interface MIB is (primarily) R/O.
The second area is the interface counters (input/output bytes/packets).
p.8 2.2.7 For ifAdminStatus, the I-D states "If write access is implemented
the default value for this attribute should be 'up' to avoid requiring the
use of a SNMP manager to enable the interface." Not sure how to address
this.
p.11 2.4 Since PortCounters.PortXmitData, PortCounters.PortRcvData,
PortCounters.PortXmitPkts, and PortCounters.PortRcvPkts are optional and all
return 0 if not implemented (according to the IBTA 1.0a vol 1 p. 766 Table
189), ifInOctets, ifInUcastPkts, ifOutOctets, and ifOutUcastPkts which are
based on these should be indicated to return NO-SUCH-OBJECT. This is legal
but non-IF-MIB-compliant and is better than being illegal by always
returning 0 for these objects.
p.15 defines ibIfNotifications, yet this doesn't appear anywhere else in the
MIB.
	ibIfNotifications OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { ibIfMIB 2}

p.21 ibIfVlTrafficIfIndex should be { IbIfVLTrafficEntry 1 } rather than
 ibIfPortStatEntry 1 }.
p.23 ibIfFullCompliance. From RFC 2580, "5. Mapping of the MODULE-COMPLIANCE
macro
The MODULE-COMPLIANCE macro is used to convey a minimum set of requirements
with respect to implementation of one or more MIB modules."
Based on that, it would appear that only ibIfBasicCompliance is needed.
-- Hal Rosenstock
   Paceline Systems
   [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib