Subject: [mpls] MPLS-TC MIB for IPv6

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:59:46 -0700

Hi folks,

There are some basic issues in the TC-MIB RFC 3811 for IPv6. We had
made the changes to the MIB and updated the document below. As we seem
to have support for the IPv6 MPLS effort, I think we should take the
updates for the MIB along too.

Here is the link to the MIB draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis-00.txt

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:43:53 -0400

Before we get carried away with this let us first be clear that the "base" MPLS MIBs do indeed support IPv6 in a manner that does work. I've implemented them and know of dozens of implementations that did as well. There are also 100s of deployments where these MIBs are now in use. 

	When the draft you reference first came out, many reviewed the changes it contains (including myself). The consensus at the time was that the changes proposed therein did not seem to outweigh the disadvantages of uprooting and updating EVERY MIB that imports the TC (or the many implementations thereof).  For reference, people need to understand that ANY changes to the TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs contained in rfc3811 will require changes to EVERY MIB module that imports and uses those TCs, as per MIB module deprecation and object update rules. In the analysis of the changes proposed in your draft, it was determined that they would result in not only all of the "base" MPLS MIBs needing updating, but then the GMPLS and PWE3 MIBs which rely on parts of those modules, would also result in similar module deprecation/updates needed. I don't believe that the situation has changed since then, but I can only speak on behalf of myself in this regard.

	--Tom

> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:23:49 -0700

Hi Thomas,

Great to hear from you.

MPLS-TC's for IPv6 are broken. We have a solution to incrementally
update the MIB without having to break any existing MIB's. I do not
see your concern?

It would be better if the "dozens" of vendors talk for themselves
about the support they have for MPLS IPv6  MIB's, if they have
concerns with having IPv6 support for the MIB's. I am sure if they had
implemented the MIB for IPv6 they would have figured the issues basic
issues in it.

The consensus was that we would meet and discuss it during IETF
meetings, but I guess because you have been busy we have been unable
to do that earlier.

Thanks,
Vishwas