Re: Dense?
Bob Stewart <rlstewart@eng.xyplex.com> Tue, 15 September 1992 21:43 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-chassismib>
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA13122; Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:43:53 -0400
Received: from xap.xyplex.com by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA13113; Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:43:45 -0400
Received: by xap.xyplex.com id <AA04029@xap.xyplex.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:42:35 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:42:35 -0500
Message-Id: <9209152242.AA04029@xap.xyplex.com>
From: Bob Stewart <rlstewart@eng.xyplex.com>
To: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
In-Reply-To: David Perkins's message of Tue, 15 Sep 92 12:36:24 PDT <9209151936.AA06341@immer.synoptics.com>
Subject: Re: Dense?
This seems to be Dave's week for good questions and mine for opinions. >If an agent (in either the terminal server or the >router) implements the chassis MIB, if >the entries in the slot table are numbered >1 to 8 so that they correspond to the physical >slots is this dense or sparse? Aha! I see the problem. I think of sparse or dense referring to holes in the numbering when I do a get or get-next. If get-next returns 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8, that's dense, if it returns 4-6-8, that's sparse, that is, it didn't return the empty slots. >If the entries >in the slot table were numbered 2 (slot 1), 4 (slot 2), >8 (slot 3), 16 (slot 4), 32 (slot 5), 64 (slot 6), >128 (slot 7), and 256 (slot 8), then I would say these >would be "sparse". The widely spaced funny numbering is also allowable and would most likely be handled as sparse as the between numbers don't even correspond to anything. >However, I don't understand what >situations that this numbering would be appropriate? Hmmmm. If the "chassis" were really big, you might number by cabinet * 256 + shelf * 16 + slot. That would have lots of abstract slots. That's perhaps a bit weird, but we're not tying "chassis" strictly to a single, relatively small card cage. >And again, would it be Ok for the router that implemented >the chassis MIB to use the first numbering, and the >terminal server that also implemented the chassis >MIB to use the second numbering? I'd say no. I believe they should be the same. >Also note that the power supply is a "dumb" >"logical device" that doesn't have an agent >and doesn't have a MIB (yet). How does it >fit into the chassis MIB model? Going out on a bit of a limb, it should show up as an entry like any other device and I guess the chassis agent would have to pull its information out of thin air. >Finally, is this simple example a "good" one to >use for further discussion? What other additional >information needs to be added (maybe information >about backplane(s))? Sounds pretty good to me. It should probably have a couple of segments to play with. If you'd like to try provoking some discussion, let it have a repeater card and let that repeater card be able to hook to two different segments at the same time and not repeat them. Bob
- Dense? David Perkins
- Re: Dense? David L. Arneson (arneson@ctron.com)
- Re: Dense? Bob Stewart
- Re: Dense? CASE
- Re: Dense? Keith McCloghrie
- Re: Dense? Bob Stewart