Re: Chassis MIB comments

Chris Chiotasso <chris@andr.ub.com> Fri, 11 June 1993 14:12 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06527; 11 Jun 93 10:12 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06522; 11 Jun 93 10:12 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA14543; Fri, 11 Jun 93 09:50:30 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 11 Jun 1993 09:50:29 EDT
Errors-To: owner-chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from ub-gate.UB.com by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA14528; Fri, 11 Jun 93 09:50:25 -0400
Received: from sunny.andr.UB.com (sunny.andr.UB.com) by ub-gate.UB.com (4.1/SMI-4.1[UB-1.8]) id AA25237; Fri, 11 Jun 93 06:50:28 PDT
Received: from lodi.andr.UB.com by sunny.andr.UB.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13646; Fri, 11 Jun 93 09:50:26 EDT
Received: by lodi.andr.UB.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA14573; Fri, 11 Jun 93 09:50:26 EDT
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 09:50:26 EDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Chris Chiotasso <chris@andr.ub.com>
Message-Id: <9306111350.AA14573@lodi.andr.UB.com>
To: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Chassis MIB comments

Dave,

That's exactly what I am asking for.  We are developing a multi-protocol
brouter.  I will need to see each stack separately.  

Chris



> From arneson@ctron.com Fri Jun 11 09:30:03 1993
> To: Chris Chiotasso <chris@andr.UB.com>
> Cc: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
> Subject: Re: Chassis MIB comments 
> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 09:28:46 -0400
> From: "David L. Arneson" <arneson@ctron.com>
> Content-Length: 736
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Let me make sure I understand what you are asking for.  It seems that
> you want to list the resource seperate from any of the configuration
> tables.
> 
> Second you want to make the mappings between modules/resource/entities
> as many:many:many.  Based on this understanding I would support this.
> I have felt that the relationships between resource and entities should
> be many:many.  The first thing that it would provide is the ability
> to seperate entities so that each entity can be managed seperate.  In
> other words we no longer need a brouter component we can have seperate
> bridge entity and router entity each managable in it's own right.  This
> would seem like a big win to me.  
> 
> What to others think of the idea.
> 
> /David Arneson
>