Re: [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort

"K.C. Norseth" <kcn@norseth.com> Fri, 29 March 2002 01:09 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 UAA20804 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:09:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA25503 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:09:43 -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 UAA25495; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:09:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA25458 for <bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:09:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from c001.snv.cp.net (c001-h000.c001.snv.cp.net [209.228.32.114]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA20793 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:09:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: (cpmta 9517 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 17:09:04 -0800
Received: from 24.221.253.53 (HELO kcn) by smtp.register-admin.com (209.228.32.114) with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 17:09:04 -0800
X-Sent: 29 Mar 2002 01:09:04 GMT
Message-ID: <001301c1d6be$7bd19e70$850f880a@kcn>
From: "K.C. Norseth" <kcn@norseth.com>
To: Michael MacFaden <mrm@riverstonenet.com>, bridge-mib@ietf.org
References: <20020328162423.R24747@riverstonenet.com>
Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:10:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Mike,

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.

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

K.C.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael MacFaden" <mrm@riverstonenet.com>
To: <bridge-mib@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 5:24 PM
Subject: [Bridge-mib] problems with dot1dStpPortDesignatedPort


| Hi,
|
| 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.
|
| Testing with existing fielded products
| has shown that the priority bits often just
| get shifted out which strikes me as rather broken.
|
| 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?
|
| Thanks,
| Mike MacFaden
|
| _______________________________________________
| Bridge-mib mailing list
| Bridge-mib@ietf.org
| https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
|


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