Subject: [Isis-wg] RE: IS-IS MIB (metric comments)

From: Jeff Parker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 18:35:07 -0400

> In version 0.8 of the ISIS MIB, you have a Textual Convention
> for DefaultMetric which is defined as (1..63).  Should we 
> allow zero in the range, as our passive interfaces have a 
> metric of zero.
> 
> Also, are you working on adding a WideMetric TC and associated
> objects (isisCircLevelWideMetric, isisIPRAWideMetric, 
> isisSummAddrWideMetric)?
> 
> -don

Don -
	1) Thanks.  The TC is easy to change from 1..63 to 0..63.
	
	2) I'm not sure if the right thing to do here is to add
new types.  Is there harm in simply extending the range of
all of these to go past 63?  

- jeff parker
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://spider.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: "Don Goodspeed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 19:06:47 -0400 (EDT)

Jeff,

Thanks for cc'ing the WG on this.  I'd forgotten to when I
sent this originally.

In section 12.2 of the "Recommendations" draft you just sent
out, we acknowledge that the narrow and the wide metric can
be set independently.

Separate attributes would make sense then, even if the IS-IS
implementation used always sets one equal to the other internally.

I would also push for a separate WideMetric TC since allowing
a larger range on the current DefaultMetric attributes might
break some range checking algorithms.

My 2 cents,
Don

 --- On Tue 06/04, Jeff Parker  wrote:
From: Jeff Parker [mailto: [email-masked]]
To: [email-masked]
     Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue 06/04
Subject: RE: IS-IS MIB (metric comments)

> all of these to go past 63?  

------------------------------------------------
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://spider.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg