Re: [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort
Michael MacFaden <mrm@riverstonenet.com> Thu, 04 April 2002 00:06 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19523 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 19:06:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA08008 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 19:06:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA07994; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 19:06:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA07961 for <bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 19:06:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from agile.yagosys.com (host3.riverstonenet.com [63.113.148.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA19516 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 19:06:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 5925 invoked by uid 10041); 4 Apr 2002 00:06:09 -0000
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:06:09 -0800
From: Michael MacFaden <mrm@riverstonenet.com>
To: Les Bell <Les_Bell@eur.3com.com>
Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort
Message-ID: <20020403160609.F4479@riverstonenet.com>
References: <80256B90.002FC6F3.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <80256B90.002FC6F3.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22i
X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux 2.4.18
Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <bridge-mib.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 09:35:11AM +0100, Les Bell wrote: >> In draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-02.txt, >> the managed object: >> >> dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort OBJECT-TYPE >> SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (2)) >> MAX-ACCESS read-only >> STATUS current >> DESCRIPTION >> "The Port Identifier of >> the port on the Designated >> Bridge for this port's segment." >> REFERENCE "IEEE 802.1D-1990: Section 4.5.5.7" >> ::= { dot1dStpPortEntry 9 } > >The dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort object is defined as an opaque >octet string and it does not understand the priority and port >number fields embedded within it. Therefore, it does not matter >(to this MIB object) that the boundary between them has changed. How did you reach that conclusion? What I see is an object that is clearly a 'Port Identifier' which is well defined in the base 802.1D 1990 spec. If dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort is opaque, how can it be used at all in an interoperable fashion? >> So is is possible that some prose be added to >> the front matter about what a conforming application >> should expect from a device implementing the BRIDGE-MIB >> when it device has > 255 ports? > >I did not think this was necessary. I agree if as you say, the octet string is opaque. >If you have some proposed text, we can discuss it. If the octet string is not opaque, then something like this would lead to well defined behavior that enahances interoperability. 99.99 Special cases: dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort If a device has greater than 255 ports, the Port Identifier encoding can not be done with the bit allocations as defined prior to IEEE 802.1T. dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort object instances greater than 255 are not visible to management queries. Mike MacFaden _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
- [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesignated… Michael MacFaden
- Re: [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesign… K.C. Norseth
- Re: [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesign… Michael MacFaden
- Re: [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesign… Les Bell
- Re: [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesign… Michael MacFaden