Subject: some comments on MIB

From: Mike Daniele <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 98 10:41:45 -0400

Hi,

1) Under agentxSessionObjectID is

>--
>-- Issue: should we describe this more in terms of AGENT-CAPABILITIES
>-- or sysORTable?
>--

This should be removed, since this oid has no relation to
agent capabilities.

2) I thought there was agreement last year to remove
agentxConnNumber and agentxConnSessions?

3) agentxRegStart and agentxRegEnd

There was a lot of discussion on these (see archives for Dec 97).
I want to make sure we all agree on what goes into these objects.

since agentxRegEnd is described as  "up to but not including", 
I assume the following:

received r.region       agentxRegStart          agentxRegEnd
-----------------       --------------          ------------
a.b.c                   a.b.c                   a.b.c+1
a.b.c.[d-e]             a.b.c.d                 a.b.c.e+1
a.b.c.[d-e].f           a.b.c.d.f               a.b.c.e.f+1

I think a table such as this in the MIB would be helpful
(once we agree on what to use for values :-)

4) agentxRegPriority

I think the DEFVAL will end up being 128, if we agree on that
for 2257.  (David Battle's mail about making the default such that
one can always get "in front of" or "behind" it.)

5) agentxRegisterDuplicate

Is this really useful?  If we're going to keep it, wouldn't
it be better to make this counter part of agentxRegistrationEntry?
At least then you'd know which registered region was encountering
duplicate registrations.

Thanks,
Mike

---

From: Bob Natale <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 11:25:56 -0400

>At 8/5/98 10:41 AM, Mike Daniele wrote:

Hi Mike,

>This should be removed, since this oid has no relation to

Right...the comment should be removed.

>agentxConnNumber and agentxConnSessions?

If not, now's as good a time to agree to remove them...
does anyone object.  (Note that there no corresponding
object for number of entries in the registration table
anyway.)

>received r.region       agentxRegStart          agentxRegEnd

That's the way we implemented it.  And, yes, I guess the
last subid in an agentxRegStart object could conceivably
have the max UINT32 value, presenting an anomaly wrt the
"+1" operation.  Not worth worrying about, it seems.

>for 2257.  (David Battle's mail about making the default such
>that one can always get "in front of" or "behind" it.)

Good idea (David)!

>At least then you'd know which registered region was encountering

I personally think a count of each error state is useful.
I think isolating it to the subagent session involved is
sufficient for this MIB.  I realize that this is a topic
of disagreement already in one or more other threads on
this general matter.  I will do a summary posting of my
position/rationale later today and try to accept whatever
the outcome of that is w/o dragging this one much further.
(I've been doing some research and trying to formulate the
rationale concisely and convincingly.)

But you are certainly right in that, as it stands in the
980414 AgentX MIB, this object is somewhat peculiar at best.

Cordially,

BobN
------------ ISO 9001 Registered Quality Supplier -----------
Bob Natale         | ACE*COMM              | 301-721-3000 [v]
Dir, Net Mgmt Prod | 704 Quince Orchard Rd | 301-721-3001 [f]
[email-masked]| Gaithersburg MD 20878 | www.acecomm.com
------------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com -------------