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 1993 09:50:26 -0400
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 >
- 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