RE: [802.1 - 1083] FW: [Bridge-mib] Connectivity Fault Management MIB

Please provide clarifications for the IEEE8021-CFM-MIB in .1ag:

1. Norman Finn wrote:
> 4. The Stack Table will be revised to have the interface number, MD
> Level, VLAN ID or zero, and direction as inputs, and  produce
> Maintenance Domain index, MA index, MEPID (or 0 for MIPs) as outputs.

To my understanding, there cannot be more that one Maintenance Domains
with the same MD Level on a single Bridge. Am I right? 

2. Providing a single Bridge cannot have more than one Maintenance Domain 
with the same MD Level, then can you index the table dot1agCfmMdTable by
dot1agCfmMdLevel? In this case you don't need additional arbitrary integer
index dot1agCfmMdIndex neither dot1agCfmMdTableNextIndex. I offer 
to replace dot1agCfmMdIndex by dot1agCfmMdLevel in all relevant tables, for
example in dot1agCfmMaTable.

3. Now let's consider dot1agCfmMaTable. If the first index of this table is
dot1agCfmMdLevel, then you could use the pair {dot1agCfmMaFormat, dot1agCfmMaName}
as a second and third indexes: maximum length of index would be 1+1+1+45=48, not so
VERY long OIDs. Note that, for example, in 
DISMAN-PING-MIB (http://www.simpleweb.org/ietf/mibs/modules/IETF/txt/DISMAN-PING-MIB)
maximum index in pingCtlTable is 1+32+1+32=66.

So, the MIB would not need complex, unnatural objects dot1agCfmMdTableNextIndex
and dot1agCfmMaTableNextIndex neither type Dot1afCfmIndexIntegerNextFree; referential
integrity of tables would be provided automatically, issues of the index reusage,  increasing
and wrapping around.

4. The natural demands should be formulated:
a) When an entry in the dot1agCfmMdTable is deleted, all relevant entries in
dot1agCfmMaTable must be deleted as well, and
b)  When an entry in the dot1agCfmMaTable is deleted, all relevant entries
in dot1agCfmMepTable (etc.) must be deleted.

5. If the WG continue to use the arbitrary integer index dot1agCfmMdIndex with different
ranges for associated and not-associated, then instead of a single object dot1agCfmMaTableNextIndex
two objects must be defined, one per a such range, let us say:
dot1agCfmMaTableVlanedNextIndex (0, 1..4094) and 
dot1agCfmMaTableNonVlanedNextIndex (0, 16777217..4294967295).

And what is more, why second indexes in dot1agCfmMaEntry cannot be repeated inside
different domains? In other words object dot1agCfmMaTableNextIndex should be per MD.

Thanks, Alex

_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
Bridge-mib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib