Subject: RE: Consensus for draft-kompella-mpls-te-mib-00.txt

From: Arun Viswanathan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 20:28:32 -0700

Sudhanshu,

> I agree with your approach and here are my views to this effort.
> 
> I would like to see single MIB addressing all related issue 
> as it help to
> clear the confusion.
> 
> IMHO, LSP info ( in this draft) is not specific to tunnel 
> only and so there
> is no point them merging it with TE-MIB. Instead, it should 
> be get augmented
> to mplsXCEntry in LSR MIB.

I think the confusion is arising out of the use of the term LSP in 
Kireeti's MIB to actually mean tunnels as defined in RSVP/CRLDP drafts
or as in MPLS-TE-MIB. So there are no objects in Kireeti's MIB that
need to go into the LSR MIB.

> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Also, why do we have named draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib.txt as 
> "TE-MIB"? IMHO, it
> should be Tunnel-MIB :)) 

We could have, but I doubt if that would have changed anything
with regard to this debate :-)

-arun

---

From: "Sudhanshu Jain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:34:13 -0700

Hi Arun,

I am changing the subject line to avoid any confusion with current hot
discussion on MIB merging. This mail also address the same issue, but to
avoid any confusion with the other mail.

Please see my inline comments.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arun Viswanathan" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Sudhanshu Jain'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 8:28 PM
Subject: RE: Consensus for draft-kompella-mpls-te-mib-00.txt

> need to go into the LSR MIB.

I think, tunnel MIB objects are present only on ingress LSR and to some
extent to egress LSR. Please correct me, if I am wrong.

As far the MPLS TE (Traffic Engineering) is concerned, it need to be
performed at each hop not just at ingress and egress. So if this is the
case, I think current MPLS-TE MIB is not the correct mib representing MPLS
Traffic Engineering, as it address some TE aspects like session attribute
etc for the configuration purpose at the head end of the tunnel only.

On the other hand, objects like mplsLspAge, mplsLspTimeUp,
mplsLspPrimaryTimeUp, mplsLspTransition, mplsPathPropertis etc. in Kireeti's
mib need to be monitor at each hop.

May be these objects should be addresses based on different index as oppose
to mplsLspName as specified in Kireeti's MIB.

Any comments ?

> with regard to this debate :-)

I think it will make the difference. Tunnel MIB is to address objects only
at ingress (and egress) LSRs only. While TE-MIB should address issues for
the whole path.

Also, current subject of traffic engineering is very pre-mature in MPLS and
it is better separate tunnel configuration from MPLS traffic engineering.
Tunnel is a configurable entity while traffic engineering in MPLS domain
should work on path not on tunnel.

-Sudhanshu

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:13:29 -0400

>extent to egress LSR. Please correct me, if I am wrong.

         It is possible (though not mandatory) to have vendors
implement the MPLS-TE-MIB at intermediate hops. However, it is
designed to do so. I know of several implementations where
this is supported on every hop. In fact, the recent indexing
modifications I made to the tunnel table allow for this.

>to mplsLspName as specified in Kireeti's MIB.

         I agree with you. These are available at intermediate hops using the
MPLS-TE-MIB. What might be better is to make it mandatory (or a subset of the
objects) at intermedite hops.

         --Tom