Re: [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort

"Les Bell" <Les_Bell@eur.3com.com> Wed, 03 April 2002 08:40 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 DAA27277 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 03:40:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id DAA04554 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 03:40:51 -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 DAA04530; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 03:40:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA04498 for <bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 03:40:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from columba.www.eur.3com.com (ip-161-71-171-238.corp-eur.3com.com [161.71.171.238]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA27270 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 03:40:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from toucana.eur.3com.com (toucana.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.50]) by columba.www.eur.3com.com with ESMTP id g338fxx00231; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 09:41:59 +0100 (BST)
Received: from notesmta.eur.3com.com (eurmta1.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.206]) by toucana.eur.3com.com with SMTP id g338eGc17565; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 09:40:16 +0100 (BST)
Received: by notesmta.eur.3com.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 80256B90.002FC87A ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 09:41:55 +0100
X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM
From: Les Bell <Les_Bell@eur.3com.com>
To: Michael MacFaden <mrm@riverstonenet.com>
cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org
Message-ID: <80256B90.002FC6F3.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 09:35:11 +0100
Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
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



Mike MacFaden 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 }
>
> has not been updated with text to
> say what one should do if the bridge
> has greater than 255 ports.
>
> I understand 802.1T has modified how these 16 bits are
> being divided up, however I don't think this
> object can be reused and must only report
> on the range it is capable of reporting on.
>
> A new object would have to be added to represent
> the new interpretation of the 16 bits in a port identifer.

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.

> Testing with existing fielded products
> has shown that the priority bits often just
> get shifted out which strikes me as rather broken.

The products with this behaviour are broken, not the MIB.

> 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.
If you have some proposed text, we can discuss it.

> Thanks,
> Mike MacFaden

Les...



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