Subject: RE: draft-ietf-l3vpn-vr-mib-03.txt

From: "Ronald Bonica" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:10:09 -0500

Joe,

The following are a few questions/comments on the vr-mib draft:

1) The draft is based upon the premise that a single SNMP agent should
represent every virtual router on a physical router. An alternative
approach would be to deploy a separate SNMP agent for each virtual
router. Have you explored that option? If so, why did you reject it? Had
you chosen that option, would a vr-mib be required at all?

(I honestly don't know which alternative is better. I'm just checking to
see that the alternative was explored.)

2) The vr-mib goes to some length the support configuration using SNMP.
Other MIBs tend to be for monitoring purposes, with an occasional
read-write variable. Do you see this MIB being used much for
configuration?

3) The document has a few formatting problems (e.g., section numbering).
Please see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html

                              /speaking as individual contributor
                              Ron

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:39:21 -0500

> see that the alternative was explored.)

	This is in fact one very possible approach.  For example,
assign multiple IP addresses to different SNMP master agents
on a box (or have the same one just be virtualized using the
same process, but understand multiple destination IP address->
VR mapping).

	--Tom