Re: The future
{3COM/PDD/PeteW}@pdd.3mail.3com.com Thu, 17 December 1992 13:37 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU>
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA25004; Thu, 17 Dec 92 08:37:00 -0500
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:36:59 GMT
Errors-To: owner-chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from gatekeeper.3Com.COM by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA24996; Thu, 17 Dec 92 08:36:56 -0500
Received: from gw.3Com.COM by gatekeeper.3Com.COM with SMTP id AA06813 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4-910725 for <chassismib@cs.utk.edu>); Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:36:53 -0800
Received: by gw.3Com.COM id AA06326 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for chassismib@cs.utk.edu); Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:36:51 -0800
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:26:00 -0800
From: {3COM/PDD/PeteW}@pdd.3mail.3com.com
Subject: Re: The future
To: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
Message-Id: <921217.053757@3Mail.3Com.COM>
Msg-Date: 1992-12-17
Msg-Time: 12:02
Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note From: Wilson, Peter To: Moran, Paul Woodruff, Paul IETF-Chassis MIB Subject: Re: The future Date: 1992-12-17 12:01 Priority: Fixed Font: 0001 Message ID: 7CCB12A5 Conversation ID: 7CCB12A5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ First - I apologise for the length of this message. >> I do have a couple of concerns I wanted to bring up. First I'm not sure we >> want to delete the concept of the segment that an entity is connected to. >> I feel that we can view segment as either backplane segment or backbone, >> rib etc in a more general sense. I feel the information is useful >> to have in this MIB. > >I totaly agree with this view, the segment table and the configuration table >are most helpful specially when trying to use the chassis MIB to describe a >"logical" chassis rather then the traditional one. I don't think I removed the ability of the MIB to model the concept of a 'segment'. I really just wanted to simplify the relationships between 'things' in the chassis. Instead of treating a segment as a seperate thing I asked the question 'why is a segment different from a component of anything else? It is simply a component that _may_ be needed to construct a particular entity in some architectures. For example a chassis has a backplane that contains three 802.3 'segments'. Another architecture may use a central repeater builder card. Every repeater card connects to every repeater builder. The concept of segment is confusing in this instance. The repeater entity is important. In a logical chassis what is the analogy to a segment? I can't really think of one and if I could I think I'd be hard pressed to explain why it isn't a component of some module. Example: The chassis contains two cards. Each card contains 12 ports. Each port is a component of the card it is on. Any port can connect to any 'segment' Suppose all odd ports are on segment 1, all even ports on segment 2. In my model phyLocationTable locationType Location Contents Backplane 1 'Standard Backplane' ModularSlot 1 '12 Port Switchable Card' ModularSlot 2 '12 Port Switchable Card' entityTable Index Type 14 Repeater ; Index chosen for example 20 Repeater componentTable location index Type Assignment Backplane.1 1 802.3 Entity 14 Backplane.1 2 802.3 Entity 20 Backplane.1 3 802.3 Entity 0 ; Not currently used ModularSlot.1 1 802.3 Entity 14 ModularSlot.1 2 802.3 Entity 20 ModularSlot.1 3 802.3 Entity 14 ModularSlot.1 4 802.3 Entity 20 ... ModularSlot.2 12 802.3 Entity 20 The old MIB couldn't actually represent this model because the 3-way relationship was between module, entity and segment.Assume this were enhanced to be 4-way between module, sub-module, entity and segment. The equivalent tables in the old MIB would then be: phyTable Slot Contents 1 '12 Port Switchable Card' 2 '12 Port Switchable Card' entityTable Index Type 14 Repeater ; Index chosen for example so as not to be same as 20 Repeater ; segment index. segmentTable Index Type 1 802.3 2 802.3 3 802.3 mappingTable module subindex entity segment 1 1 14 1 1 2 20 2 1 3 14 1 1 4 20 2 ... 2 12 20 2 Now this is a complex and doesn't store any information about things currently unused, for example segment 2. Neither can one simply change the connection of one component of one module from one segment to another. To do this one needs to delete the old row and create a new row. A Common Example ---------------- Much more than common than chassis where any port can be dynamically switched to any repeater is the case where all ports on a card can be switched to a repeater. ie all ports on card 2 on repeater 3. phyLocationTable locationType Location Contents Backplane 1 'Standard Backplane' ModularSlot 1 '12 Port Repeater Card' ModularSlot 2 '12 Port Repeater Card' entityTable Index Type 14 Repeater ; Index chosen for example 20 Repeater componentTable location index Type Assignment Backplane.1 1 802.3 Entity 14 Backplane.1 2 802.3 Entity 20 Backplane.1 3 802.3 Entity 0 ; Not currently used ModularSlot.1 1 802.3 Entity 14 ModularSlot.2 2 802.3 Entity 20 ie, each card has only one distinct component that represents all 12 ports. The table is still simple and the relationships/potential relationships clear. >> The other concern I have is that Pete treats the backplane as a module. >> I question if this is the correct view for us to take? I could go either >> way I just want to get other views. > > Again in the traditional chassis the backplane was quite simple and did not have any > "features" and for example contained all the segments in the chassis. > In a "logical" chassis the backplane may be also a "logical" one and as such may have > segments which are connected internally and externally. therefor I find it > logically to treat the backplane as a module. It is my belive that it > is better to put in the effort so the backplane can be treated as a module and let > those who want to use it to be able to, and those who don't will not, rather then > having those who want to treat the backplane as a module not be able to do so. Thanks for the comments. One thing to note from the examples above, having a fixed backplane with a couple of 802.3 components does not really involve greater complexity from the simple agent because we've reduced complexity in the mapping table and removed the segment table altogether. Also the model is easier to understand so is likely to have fewer interoperability problems. My main point is that segments still exist but they are components of some module. Pete
- The future David L. Arneson (arneson@ctron.com)
- Re: The future Joseph Zur
- Re: The future {3COM/PDD/PeteW}