Subject: TE MIB

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:06:52 -0700 (PDT)

Hi All,

I've finally posted the updated TE MIB.  Sorry for the long wait.

Many thanks to Keith McCloghrie for his many and detailed comments;
thanks too to several others who've sent in comments.  I've tried to
incorporate as many of them as I could.

Structurally, the MIB is pretty much the same.  The main differences:
a) the mib now compiles! (there is a TBD for which I fill in a random
   value; I use the Epilogue compiler, version 9.0, FWIW);
b) the mib object names now reflect the fact that it is a TE MIB rather
   than an MPLS LSP mib;
c) there is a textual convention for hop addresses.

There are lots of small changes, mostly pointed out by Keith -- either
bugs or violations of SNMP conventions.  Any remaining (or new) ones
are of course my fault.

There are at least three things to be done:
1) Add TE link information.  Keith pointed out that having the notion
   of include/exclude constraints without being able to map links to
   administrative groups via some MIB.  If this is followed, then
   there might as well be link information in this mib.
2) Do something meaningful with ERO/RROs (see below).
3) Add conformance statements.

ERO: currently, an ERO is an OCTET STRING.  It's extremely unaesthetic,
but it gets around the problem that a table can't have an embedded
table (as  I understand it).  An alternative is to have an index into
another table; the corresponding entry then has an index for the next
element, etc.  While that is less ugly, it means a lot of table accesses
to get the full ERO.

If anyone has bright ideas how to implement EROs (RROs are similar),
please let me know.  Otherwise, indicate which of the above alternatives
seem less heinous to you.

Any other comments are also very welcome.

Thanks,
Kireeti.

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:41:23 -0400

>    value; I use the Epilogue compiler, version 9.0, FWIW);

         Let me suggest that you run the SmicNG or SmiLint compilers
(in that order) over your MIB. Epilogue's compiler is weak in comparison to
either, and frequently compiles MIBs that have errors that violate the SMI.
For example, it ignores something as fundamental as the conformance
and compliance sections at  the end of the MIB. This is probably why
it compiled without your adding either (I see your TBD item below). *)

         --Tom

>Any other comments are also very welcome.

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

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:07:26 -0700 (PDT)

>          Let me suggest that you run the SmicNG or SmiLint compilers

Thanks, I'll look around and see if our SNMP folks have these.

Kireeti.

---

From: Michael MacFaden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:45:02 -0700

>Any other comments are also very welcome.

When designing your counters,
Please consider some of the comments in this presentation:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0102/ppt/mibs/index.htm

Especially consider the use of the REFERENCE clause 
so folks trying to implement this MIB module might 
count the same thing in their respective products.

Thanks,
Mike