IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort

Michael MacFaden <mrm@riverstonenet.com> Fri, 29 March 2002 20:05 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 PAA01597 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:05:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA29023 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:05:10 -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 PAA29010; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:05:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA28977 for <bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:04:58 -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 PAA01570 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:04:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 11508 invoked by uid 10041); 29 Mar 2002 20:04:24 -0000
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:04:24 -0800
From: Michael MacFaden <mrm@riverstonenet.com>
To: "K.C. Norseth" <kcn@norseth.com>
Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort
Message-ID: <20020329120424.D4146@riverstonenet.com>
References: <20020328162423.R24747@riverstonenet.com> <001301c1d6be$7bd19e70$850f880a@kcn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <001301c1d6be$7bd19e70$850f880a@kcn>
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 Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 06:10:14PM -0700, K.C. Norseth wrote:
>We depricated dot1dStpPortPathCost for dot1dStpPortPathCost32   I can see
>the value of doing a new object dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort.  We don't want
>to add new objects if possible, but this does make sense.

Great.

>What should a conforming application expect from a device implementing the
>BRIDGE-MIB when it device has > 255 ports?

I would think a conforming agent would return noSuchInstance for this
managed object for ports > 255.

Regards,
Mike


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email