Subject: Doubt in draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib-07.txt

From: "Ashwin C. Prabhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:21:52 +0530

Hello All ,
 
   I have one more doubt can you please clarify it ?
  The tunnel table has only mplsTunnelIndexNext if i assume LSPID as the
   mplsTunnelInstance then shouldn't there be mplsTunnelInstanceNext ?
   Because the LSPID is generated by the Device and the NM can't assign the
LSPID. 
   Or if it is not the case how does the unique index generated by the NM ?
   Or is it that the NM does the poling by giving the different
mplsTunnelInstanceIndex till 
   the device accept it ?
 
Thanks in advance
Ashwin

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:00 PM
To: Ashwin C. Prabhu
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Doubt in draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib-07.txt 

 How to configure that this tunnel instance is primary, secondary in the 
 Tunnel Table ?

        Use a different tunnelInstancePriority.

 Is it assumed that the one with the highest instance priority is the
primary ?

        Yes.

        --Tom

 Please get on the same if anybody know it.
 
Thanks in Advance
Ashwin

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

---

From: Cheenu Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:51:12 -0400

> shouldn't there be mplsTunnelInstanceNext ?

This is tricky to add since we cannot have just a single index-next
object but a mechanism to return the next instance index for a given
mplsTunnelIndex. This is like a (read-only) table indexed by 
mplsTunnelIndex.

For example:

mplsTunnelInstanceNextTable ... SEQUENCE OF MplsTunnelInstanceNextEntry

mplsTunnelInstanceNextEntry ... MplsTunnelInstanceEntry
...
INDEX { mplsTunnelIndex }

MplsTunnelInstanceNextEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
  mplsTunnelInstanceNextIndex INTEGER
}

---

From: Cheenu Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:38:17 -0400

Such a table was omitted since there was no consensus to add it.
If you wish to support this you will have to implement it as an
enterprise extension to the standard MIB.

>    If i add this table entry then what about the OID for this entry ? 
>    Can i assign that OID myself ? If that is the case then how does the 
>    NM know about it ? or is it that i have to change the NM according to 
>    my need. If i have to change it, then won't it be something like
private 
>    NM and a private MIB insted of saying it as standard ?