Subject: RE: comments on the tunnel-mib

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:28:52 -0800

Wes Hardaker writes:
> 2 quick comments:
> 
> 1) I'd move the deprecated parts of the mib to the bottom, which is
>    a more common place to list older-not-used parts (so the newer
>    parts are seen first).

No problem (although in my opinion it's not worth updating the document
solely for this).
 
> 2) I've had some users want to list start and end times within the
>    tunnel list.  Not all tunnels would have end times, but some will
>    (eg, ipsec tunnels with configured tear-down times).  A zero value
>    could be used for infinite tunnels.  Thoughts?

I didn't quite follow that.  Assuming start time is in the past,
can you elaborate on why ifLastChange and ifCounterDiscontinuityTime 
in the IF-MIB are not sufficient?

And it sounds like you're saying the end time is in the future, i.e.
an expiration time on the entry, is that right?

-Dave

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:49:38 -0800

>>>>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:28:52 -0800, "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]> said:

>> could be used for infinite tunnels.  Thoughts?

Dave> I didn't quite follow that.  Assuming start time is in the past,
Dave> can you elaborate on why ifLastChange and ifCounterDiscontinuityTime 
Dave> in the IF-MIB are not sufficient?

Because a momentary lapse in reasoning made me forget that your
tunnels are directly tied in a 1 to 1 fashion with an ifIndex.  Now
that I remember this, I'm not actually sure the MIB is what I'm
looking for anyway...

Dave> And it sounds like you're saying the end time is in the future, i.e.
Dave> an expiration time on the entry, is that right?

Right.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta