Comments.
{3COM/PDD/PeteW}@pdd.3mail.3com.com Wed, 07 July 1993 15:51 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07513; 7 Jul 93 11:51 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07509; 7 Jul 93 11:51 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA29322; Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:19:21 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 7 Jul 1993 11:19:20 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 AA29314; Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:19:18 -0400
Received: from gw.3Com.COM by gatekeeper.3Com.COM with SMTP id AA21388 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4-910725 for <chassismib@cs.utk.edu>); Wed, 7 Jul 1993 08:19:15 -0700
Received: by gw.3Com.COM id AA28126 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for chassismib@cs.utk.edu); Wed, 7 Jul 1993 08:19:14 -0700
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1993 16:14:00 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: {3COM/PDD/PeteW}@pdd.3mail.3com.com
Subject: Comments.
To: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
Message-Id: <930707.081754@3Mail.3Com.COM>
Msg-Date: 1993-07-07
Msg-Time: 16:14
Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note From: Wilson, Peter To: Chassis MIB Subject: Comments. Date: 1993-07-07 16:07 Priority: Message ID: EE9B04D8 Conversation ID: EE9B04D8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm quite surprised by the level of changes in the chassis MIB since the last revision.Some immediate comments are: The model has changed, without anyone describing the new model. The last change was backed up by a presentation and examples so that the model could be understood and hopefully accepted. That proposal specified a simple model: o A chassis contains a number of physical locations. o Each physical location can contains a single module, or can be empty. o A module in the chassis contains a number of resources, or components. Resources are things like repeater port, bridge relays, router relays. Things that need to be visible to the chassis for the purpose of identifying configuration. o The components in the chassis are grouped together to implement functional entities, such as repeaters, bridges. It is not the intention of this MIB to replace other standard MIBs, but simply to provide additional control and information about an entity that is outside the scope of the MIB for that device. One major example, and in some ways the most important is the configuration of resources together into entities. For example a chassis can provide the means of switching individual repeater ports between one of a number of repeater entities. This functionality is outside the scope of the standard repeater MIB. Once a repeater port is switched to one of the repeater entities though, it is managed through the correct instance of the repeater MIB. Problems with the current draft (June 24). 1) Resources are no longer part of a module, so what are they? Remember at some point it will be necessary to describe the model we are using. Examples etc are required and everyone needs to think of the APPLICATION that has to use the MIB, NOT the agent. The MIB is for the manager, not the agent! 2) Resources are identified by some chassis unique value, an integer. One common case where resources are useful is to map per-port-switching Ethernet or Token Ring ports to one of a number of chassis repeaters. Each switchable port is a resource. Now as far as the user is concerned these ports are numbered 1 thru n on each card. With the previous draft the resource numbering on that card could also be 1 thru n and so the mapping is clear! Now port 1 may map to resource 52, port 2 to 55 etc. If I want to switch the user on port 1 from repeater entity X to repeater Y, how do I know which resource to switch? I don't from the current MIB. I strongly recommend dropping this idea of divorcing the resource from the module. 3) The current draft does not allow for the assignment of resources to entities, something I maintain is a MUST for this MIB, it is outside the scope of any specific MIB. In the previous draft of the MIB I believe there was a physical resource table which had an entity assignment column which contained the (single) entity to which this resource belongs. This column allows a particular resource to be currently unassigned. An additional column contained the OID entity type to which this resource could be assigned.This was a hint to an application but would work in almost every case. An application could be written for that MIB that could generically determine the chassis configuration that would be understandable to the user, even if some of the semantics were missing to the application. 4) The previous draft allowed for the creation of a new entity. This may seem strange but consider a multi-repeater chassis. Say I have a box that can sub-divide users into different repeated groups then use bridge or router security between groups. I believe there are products like this available now. If I've partitioned my network into 3 repeated networks then decide for either load or security reasons that another group is required the old MIB allowed this: create a new repeater entity assign the repeater ports to that entity that I'm interested in. assign a spare bridge repeater port to that repeater for security. easy. Again this is a chassis problem, because the logical configuration of port outside of a chassis is not possible. The generic repeater and bridge MIBs do not and should not do this. Now this is another feature that seems to have been removed from the MIB. Remember in the original Columbus proposal I showed how all these requirements could be met and how a large number of configurations could be modelled. Before making changes to that MIB I'd like it demonstrated that we are not loosing ability simply because of a lack of a few minutes thought. I think the onus should be on a proposer of a change such as many-to-many to demostrate that the MIB does not break in other areas. That resources can be configured, that entities can be created etc. In summary I think the MIB was much better a couple of drafts ago. It seems to have lost a lot of functionality for the sake of a more complex, but less useful MIB. I don't believe there are a majority of people supporting the changes and I don't think all the consequences have been thought through. I would NOT BE HAPPY presenting this MIB to the IETF as a standard. If we have to present something then use the previous draft which was at least consistent and held together and was capable of supporting a generic application. We can then work the many-to-many resource/entity relationship correctly into that MIB with compromising all the other benefits of the MIB! Pete Wilson.
- Comments. {3COM/PDD/PeteW}