RE: Chassis MIB comments
{3COM/PDD/PeteW}@pdd.3mail.3com.com Fri, 11 June 1993 15:44 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08909; 11 Jun 93 11:44 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08902; 11 Jun 93 11:44 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA20628; Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:21:35 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 11 Jun 1993 11:21:33 EDT
Errors-To: owner-chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from gatekeeper.3Com.COM by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA20614; Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:21:30 -0400
Received: from gw.3Com.COM by gatekeeper.3Com.COM with SMTP id AA00353 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4-910725 for <chassismib@cs.utk.edu>); Fri, 11 Jun 1993 08:21:33 -0700
Received: by gw.3Com.COM id AA08587 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for chassismib@cs.utk.edu); Fri, 11 Jun 1993 08:21:29 -0700
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 16:16:00 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: {3COM/PDD/PeteW}@pdd.3mail.3com.com
Subject: RE: Chassis MIB comments
To: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
Message-Id: <930611.082740@3Mail.3Com.COM>
Msg-Date: 1993-06-11
Msg-Time: 16:16
Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note From: Wilson, Peter To: Chassis MIB Subject: RE: Chassis MIB comments Date: 1993-06-11 16:10 Priority: Message ID: 7247F3CE Conversation ID: 7247F3CE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chris, here are some comments on your comments:-) I've also answered some points raised by Manu in response to your message. > Should the chasPhyResourceTable provide mapping information or > just provide a list of all resources in the chassis? I suggest > that the mapping should be done by the chasLogResourceTable and > that chasPhyResourceEntry be a flat list of resources as follows: > > chasPhyResourceEntry OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX ChasPhyResourceEntry > ACCESS read-only > STATUS mandatory > DESCRIPTION > "Defines a particular resource." > INDEX { chasPhyResIndex } > ::= { chasResourceTable 1 } > > ChasPhyResourceEntry ::= SEQUENCE { > chasPhyResIndex > INTEGER, > chasPhyResType > OBJECT IDENTIFIER > } > Originally there was only one table, effectively 'chasPhyResourceEntry'. The index on this table enabled querries such as 'tell me all the resources on module X'. At the IETF in Columbus concern was expressed that an entity to resource mapping could only be performed by scanning each row of the resource table and comparing the entity number. It was decided that adding a seperate 'logical' resource table so 'tell me all the resource currently assigned to entity Y' could be optimised. The information in the two tables is basically the same, we are simply getting the agent to provide two seperate views. Do have have a particular concern with the indices on the two tables? >2. If the chasLogResourceTable consisted of 4 indices: > chasLogResourceEntityIndex, chasLogResourceModuleTypeIndex, > chasLogResourceModuleLocation and chasLogResourceResourceIndex, > the table would provide a many-to-many mapping for > resource/module/entity mapping. For simplicity I think its best to keep the relationship from resource to entity one to one (or many resources to a single entity). Many of the problems with the old proposal was the complex relationships between modules, segments and entities. A couple of problems with the many to many relationship: 1) It is necessary for this MIB to support the dynamic configuration of resources between entities. For example I can through management move a card from one repeater to another. Such a feature is available in products now so the MIB must handle it. The current proposal allows the entity assignment column in chasPhyResourceTable to be writable. Change the assignment and the resource 'moves'. Now in a many to many mapping a resource can map to more than one entity. This means at least that your proposed change to the phy table requires a some assignment 'instance'. Then the question is how many assignments? Can the number of assignments be increased dynamically, ie row creation in the resource table as well as the entity table? 2) Why do we need a chassis MIB? In a later mail someone suggests that the 'brouter' model defeats the object of the chassis MIB. Why? The reasons we need a chassis MIB are ...... fold. Firstly to provide a physical inventory of a generic chassis. Secondly the chassis is a container of what would otherwise be seperate physical devices, that is entities. I think the requirement on the chassis MIB ends at identifying those devices that would otherwise be free standing. Thirdly to provide the access method for each logical device. Manu suggests that modelling a bridge and router as seperate entities is a requirement. Compare the chassis with the physical analogy. Either there will be seperate bridge and router boxes on the network or there will be a single box performing both a bridging and routing function. In the first case the chassis map requires resources of bridge ports, bridge relay, router ports and router relay. In the latter case there are 'network' ports and a brouter relay. Both can be mapped using the existing model with a many resource-to-one-entity relationship. >3. If the access profile information was removed from the > chasLogResourceTable into a view table, it would allow more than 1 > view to be defined for each mapping. Yes. I think the whole access part of the MIB has to be rethought. From some other comments recently it may even be better to have an SNMPv2 view table and an SNMPv1 table where only the table appropriate to the protocol is provided. Pete
- 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