Re: Re- Comments on Chassis Mib

[Steve Horowitz <[e-mail]>]

In response to [e-mail] and [e-mail]:

Without going into the technical details for the proposed 
changes, I agree philosphically with eah's contention that
multiple modules can be located within one slot and that
should be supported naturally by the chassis MIB.

-- Steve 

eah's mail extract:

>
	The actual mib, however, really only supports a one:many
mapping for physical
>location to physical module.  The current chasModuleTable only allows a
>reference to one physical location, but many modules may refer to the same
>physical location.  The question is do we need a many:many mapping between
>physical locations and physical modules. I think we do.
>
>	Consider the hypothetical case of a chassis which supports half slot modules
>(where two half slot modules may occupy the same slot simultaneously), single
>slot modules, and dual slot modules.  If we use the current mib to represent a
>chassis containing each of these modules, we need two different location types,
>a single slot location type (for the half slot and single slot modules), and a
>dual slot location type for the dual slot modules.  We also need to be able to
>determine what "type" a >

>location is based on what type of module occupies it, rather than being able to
>determine it in advance.  On the other hand, if the mapping is represented as
>many:many, the chassis locations can be described in terms of the more natural,
>single slot location type.
>