Re: Interface configuration

Kiho Yum <kxy@NSD.3Com.COM> Wed, 02 September 1992 23:42 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-chassismib>
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA06721; Wed, 2 Sep 92 19:42:41 -0400
Received: from bridge2.NSD.3Com.COM by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA06711; Wed, 2 Sep 92 19:42:37 -0400
Received: from rainier.NSD.3Com.COM by bridge2.NSD.3Com.COM with SMTP id AA02594 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4nsd for <chassismib@cs.utk.edu>); Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:42:34 -0700
Received: by rainier.NSD.3Com.COM id AA15061 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4-910725); Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:42:31 -0700
From: Kiho Yum <kxy@NSD.3Com.COM>
Message-Id: <199209022342.AA15061@rainier.NSD.3Com.COM>
Subject: Re: Interface configuration
To: arneson@ctron.com
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 16:42:30 -0700
Cc: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
In-Reply-To: <9209022044.AA01393@yeti.ctron>; from "David L. Arneson" at Sep 2, 92 4:44 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]


> 
> I started all of this because I need to solve this interface connected to
> segment problem.  I felt that if I needed it solved perhaps others did
> as well.  So yes there is
> somebody out there that needs the information.  However I'm just a voice of
> one.  I agree that others of you must find this information useful and
> implementable or it should not be in the MIB.
> 
> So where do others stand?  If we find nobody else out there that agrees with
> my self and Keith then the interface objects should be deleted from the MIB.
> 
> /David Arneson [arneson@ctron.com] [ (603)332-9400 ]
> 

No, don't delete those objects.  I agree with you (I've just been
so caught up in other work, I haven't been able to monitor this group
-- sorry :^).

It's essential that there be some way to determine exactly how the 
different entities within the chassis are connected.  It's also very 
important that this information be available from a standard MIB.
Since there is no way to get that information from one of the 
existing standard MIBs (as far as I know??), this is the obvious place 
to put it.


/kiho