Re: Chassis MIB comments

Manu Kaycee <> Fri, 11 June 1993 13:50 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05945; 11 Jun 93 9:50 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05940; 11 Jun 93 9:50 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA12385; Fri, 11 Jun 93 09:19:23 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 11 Jun 1993 09:19:21 EDT
Errors-To: owner-chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA12370; Fri, 11 Jun 93 09:19:17 -0400
Received: from ( by (4.1/SMI-4.1[UB-1.8]) id AA23673; Fri, 11 Jun 93 06:19:19 PDT
Received: from by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13541; Fri, 11 Jun 93 09:19:15 EDT
Received: by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA23494; Fri, 11 Jun 93 09:19:01 EDT
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 09:19:01 EDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Manu Kaycee <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: Chassis MIB comments

I'll keep this short for now (more to follow later).

Chris brings up good points, that need to be addressed.  For example, the
many-to-many mapping.  I had raised the same issue, a while back, and the
answer given was completely unsatisfactory.

If I have a bridge and a router realized on the same module (it may even be
modeled as a router per protocol), I would want to be able to manage them
separately.  I really don't want to clump them into a single "brouter",
which defeats the purpose.

In my opinion, many-to-many is the way to go.

Also, an editorial comment: on previous occasions, while discussing these and
similar issues, we were hit with masterful prose, that ran on page
after page.  In order not to confuse these important issues, let me suggest
that we keep our discussions focussed.