Re: Chassis MIB comments
dan@lannet.com (Dan Romascanu) Tue, 25 August 1992 04:32 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-chassismib>
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA19729; Tue, 25 Aug 92 00:32:35 -0400
Received: from [192.84.3.7] by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA19716; Tue, 25 Aug 92 00:31:55 -0400
Received: from moon.lannet.com ([149.49.50.12]) by lannet.com (4.1/3.1.090690-Lannet Data Communications) id AA05336; Mon, 24 Aug 92 09:52:50 IDT
Received: by moon.lannet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22840; Mon, 24 Aug 92 09:52:48 IDT
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 09:52:48 -0000
Message-Id: <9208240652.AA22840@moon.lannet.com>
From: dan@lannet.com
To: kzm@hls.com, chassismib@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Chassis MIB comments
>> Concentrator: A (device implementing a) node that has additional ports >> beyond those required for its own attachement to the network. (Ref.: Kessler, >> Train - MAN - Concepts, Standards and Services). > This seems to me a very loose definition. To the extent that it applies > to concentrators, it seems to apply equally well to repeaters, bridges, > or even routers - without redundant paths, disabling any port loses > connectivity from "its own attachment" to somewhere on the network. You are right, but this is exactly the intention. 'Concentrator' in my view applies also to repeaters, bridges, routers as long as they implement internally the node topology in the definition. >> Repeater: Device that extends the geographical coverage of a network by >> interconnecting two similar LANs, such as Ethernet or Token Ring. Operating >> at the physical layer of the OSI layer, it repeats (amplifies, reshapes, >> retimes) packets received from one LAN before sending them to the other. >> (Ref.: Terplan - Communications Network Management). > The use of "physical layer" excludes bridges and routers, but why are > concentrators excluded ? Shouldn't it say bit-wise, rather than "packets", > and "one LAN-segment" rather than "one LAN" ? The definitions do not exclude one another (this is the reason we use a sum and not an enumerated INTEGER, isn't it?). 'Concentrators' and 'Repeaters' definitions are overleaved. Repeaters are probably always concentrators as well, but concentrators may be passive devices (which do not amplify, reshape, retime) which are not repeaters. This second case is not covered by the definition in its present form. I do not intent to trigger a phylosophical discussion on this subject, which is far from being the most important in the Chassis MIB. However, my point is that in the first draft we had 'repeaters' and 'concentrator'- no 'MAU', now we have 'repeater' and 'MAU'- no 'concentrator'. In order to be consistent we should either include all the three or define just one 'physicalLayerDevice'. dan@lannet.com Dan Romascanu Systems Group Manager LANNET Data Communications Tel Aviv, Israel Voice: 972-3-6458414 Mail: 972-3-5447146
- Chassis MIB comments Niels Ole Brunsgaard
- Re: Chassis MIB comments arneson
- Re: Chassis MIB comments Kiho Yum
- Chassis MIB comments Keith McCloghrie
- Re: Chassis MIB comments David L. Arneson (arneson@ctron.com)
- Chassis MIB comments Dan Romascanu
- Re: Chassis MIB comments Keith McCloghrie
- Re: Chassis MIB comments Keith McCloghrie
- Re: Chassis MIB comments Dan Romascanu
- Chassis MIB comments David Perkins
- Re: Chassis MIB comments David L. Arneson (arneson@ctron.com)
- Re: Chassis MIB comments Bob Stewart
- Re: Chassis MIB comments Kiho Yum
- Chassis MIB comments Chris Chiotasso
- Re: Chassis MIB comments Manu Kaycee
- Re: Chassis MIB comments Chris Chiotasso
- RE: Chassis MIB comments {3COM/PDD/PeteW}
- Chassis MIB comments Chris Chiotasso
- RE: Chassis MIB comments Manu Kaycee
- Re: Chassis MIB comments David L. Arneson
- Re: Chassis MIB comments David L. Arneson
- Re: Chassis MIB comments Manu Kaycee
- Re: Chassis MIB comments Bob Stewart
- Re: Chassis MIB comments Mahendra J. Kaycee
- Re: Chassis MIB comments Mike MacFaden
- Chassis MIB comments Dan Romascanu
- Re: Chassis MIB comments Joseph Zur