Subject: Re: [Idr] Backwards Transition in BGP4V2-MIB

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:49:34 -0400

[Yes, this was a while ago.  No one else was apparently brave enough to
answer in my absence from the list. :-) ]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 01:44:57PM -0400, Bill Fenner wrote:
> The backwards transition trap includes the last received notification.
>  There are cases when interesting backwards transitions occur and the last
> sent notification provides more info about why (e.g., "cease/max prefixes
> reached", "cease/admin reset").  Is it reasonable to include the last sent
> notification too?  What about also including the timestamps so that the
> trap receiver can tell whether a given notification happened recently or a
> long time ago?

It's potentially reasonable to include such information.  As an example, you
could include the bgp4V2PeerLastErrorCodeSent and
bgp4V2PeerLastErrorSubCodeSent in the OJBECTS along with
bgp4V2PeerLastErrorSentTime.  It's legal in SNMP to send these even if
they're not in the main OBJECTS for the MIB.

I think you have a fair point here - the objects we include should be either
the sent or the received objects depending on whether the notification was
sent or received.

Do you have a suggestion on how you'd write the NOTIFICATION-TYPE with
OBJECTS that are set depending on that direction?  Including the timestamps
for both sent and received would make it clear which was the most recent of
the two pieces of information, but it seems like noise.

-- Jeff

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:16:19 -0700

> the two pieces of information, but it seems like noise.

It took a while, but I thought of it.

Create new objects, that are only accessible-for-notify, that are defined
as "the notification that caused the backwards transition".

  Bill