Re: MIBs for GMPLS

[Joan Cucchiara <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

Why is there so much overlap between these
MIBs and the MIBs in MPLS?

It seems that the MPLS MIBs could be extended
for GMPLS specific info and thus avoid so much
overlap.  Could you shed some light on this?

Also the Labels MIB is glumping everything into
a single table.  Was the use of separate tables (similar
to what LDP did for ATM and FR specific objects)
considered?

  Thanks, Joan

> Adrian Farrel wrote:
> 
> At the CCAMP meeting in SLC Tom introduced the set of MIBs for GMPLS
> that we have produced.
> 
> Kireeti asked that we take the MIBs to the list to ensure that the big
> issues have been addressed, that everyone is comfortable with the
> approach and there really is a need for the MIBs.
> 
> Requirements are handled by...
> 
> - protocols within the IETF need MIBs, further
>   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-01.txt
>   explicitly requires MIBs for GMPLS
> 
> The biggest issue outstanding was whether the Labels MIB should be
> included within the LSR MIB.  The authors currently feel that it
> should remain as a separate MIB
> 
> - to allow people to implement only the TE MIB
>   without putting complex conformance statements
>   in the LSR MIB
> - to allow people to clearly not implement the
>   Labels MIB at all.
> We would welcome input on this.
> 
> 
> Please take this opportunity to give us your input and help shape the
> MIBs.
> 
> We hope to respin the drafts in a compilable form in the next few
> days.
> 
> 
> The MIBs are...
> 
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-00.txt
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-label-mib-00.txt
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-00.txt
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-00.txt
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Adrian
> 
> --
> Adrian Farrel
> Movaz Networks Inc.
> Tel: [phone]
> [e-mail]