Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tewg-mib-01.txt

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 06:45:11 -0500 (EST)

This message begins a WG last call on:

	draft-ietf-tewg-mib-01.txt

This MIB is intended to be focussed on operational monitoring of MPLS TE
enabled networks.  It will progress as a Standards track RFC.  This WG
last call is open through November 18th.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 17:22:28 -0500

Hi all,

The main table of this MIB, teTunnelTable, records all tunnels that transit a
particular node.

The index to this table is teTunnelName.

How do you make this object unique across all tunnels that transit a particular
node?

It would appear that you need to make teTunnelSource part of the index.

Regards,
Adrian

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 15:06:20 -0800 (PST)

Hi Adrian,

> How do you make this object unique across all tunnels that transit a
> particular node?

This is a head-end only mib.

While we are on the topic, do folks think that an integer index is
preferable to a name as index?

Kireeti.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 18:16:55 -0500

> This is a head-end only mib.

Thanks.  That explains that!

I had another skim of the draft and couldn't find any reference to this (but I
may have missed it :-)
Do you think you could put a note in the draft somewhere to that effect?
Perhaps in sections 2, 3 and 5.

Given this, is teTunnelSource provided for completeness or to allow multiple
source addresses on one node (e.g. interfaces, virtual routers).  If the latter,
have you considered whether it is reasonable to allow the same name to be used
for two tunnels on different source addresses?

> preferable to a name as index?

Personally, yes.  After all, a null name _is_ acceptable within the signaling
protocol.  Given that, you should probably allow it in your MIB.

Will you choose an arbitrary index, or will you use something handy like tunnel
index?  If you use tunnel index, you may find you need a secondary index such as
tunnel instance (watch out, though, you don't want to turn it into
draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib ;-)

Adrian

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 17:54:58 -0800 (PST)

> Perhaps in sections 2, 3 and 5.

Okay, will do.

> source addresses on one node (e.g. interfaces, virtual routers).  If the
> latter, have you considered whether it is reasonable to allow the same
> name to be used for two tunnels on different source addresses?

The latter; it's probably reasonable to assume that tunnels on a *box*
are uniquely named.

> Will you choose an arbitrary index, or will you use something handy like
> tunnel index?  If you use tunnel index, you may find you need a secondary
> index such as tunnel instance

An arbitrary index, accompanied by a note saying that the tunnel index
(whatever that is) is a perfectly acceptable value.  It's interesting
that the MPLS TE MIB doesn't say what "tunnel index" is, although its
range is suggestive.

> (watch out, though, you don't want to turn
> it into draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib ;-)

Oh, a few indices won't get me there.  I'd have to split the mib into
three and add about a hundred pages to even get close :-)  Of course,
this is just a simple little mib that doesn't do much.

Kireeti.