Issues and Next draft

dan@lannet.com (Dan Romascanu) Thu, 17 September 1992 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-chassismib>
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA23387; Thu, 17 Sep 92 01:41:12 -0400
Received: from [192.84.3.7] by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA23379; Thu, 17 Sep 92 01:40:23 -0400
Received: from moon.lannet.com ([149.49.50.12]) by lannet.com (4.1/3.1.090690-Lannet Data Communications) id AA18497; Wed, 16 Sep 92 19:40:00 IST
Received: by moon.lannet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04178; Wed, 16 Sep 92 19:39:57 IST
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 19:39:57 -0000
Message-Id: <9209161739.AA04178@moon.lannet.com>
From: dan@lannet.com
To: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Issues and Next draft
Cc: kaycee@cardinals.ctron.com



> A week or two ago we had an energetic discussion, on this mailing list,
> about an "interface" table.  Dave A. proposed it for consideration, since it
> presented a logical to physical mapping.  Whether such a table should reside
> within the chassis mib was also discussed.
> 
> Briefly, let's consider the case where multiple modules are used to realize
> a single entity.  Depending on where, and how, the agent(s) and managed
> objects are realized, such a logical to physical mapping is required, internal
> to said entity.  (Case in point: the ifTable...which interface resides on which
> module?)
> 
> Now, for two questions.  At lease one of them has been asked before, with
> insufficient response.  Hence, this poll.
> 
> 	1.  Is there added value, if such mapping information is made
>             available, externally?  What do other WG members feel?
> 
>             (I believe it provide extra, added value...details not
>             not articulated, here.)

> 	2.  Does a table providing such mapping information belong in
>             the chassis mib?  What do other WG members feel?
> 
> 	    (I believe it does.)
> 
> WG members, comments?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> /Manu. 
> 

I just have tried to read again all the mail which has been written on this
subject (Taking into account the kilobytes we will not be accused by Jeff 
at the next meeting for being an UnWorking Group).
Providing such information externally may surely give extra value. It was 
suggested that what we really get is a 'connection table' which extends
to all types of 'ports' and Keith proposed a scheme (indexType, indexValue)
which I think might work. This type of 'connectivity table' opens the path
for interesting applications in which the mapping between objects, through
devices to segments (networks) can be described.
And yes, I think this does belong to the Chassis MIB, if we agree that we
need it, that we can implement it some way or another and that what we have 
here is a unitary approach, which can cover the different possible options.
I would like to see Dave's initial proposal with Keith's scheme merged and
have them discussed as soon as possible.

dan@lannet.com

Dan Romascanu
Systems Group Manager

LANNET Data Communications Ltd.
Tel Aviv, Israel

Voice: 972-3-6458414
Fax:   972-3-5447146