Re: Mib questions

[[e-mail] (Keith McCloghrie)]

> > >2) Do the terms "functional module" and "logical device"
> > >   mean the same and are they things like routers, bridges,
> > >   terminal servers, etc?
> > 
> > I couldn't find "functional module."  "Module" seems to always mean physical
> > module.  Logical devices are things like routers, bridges, etc., and may or
> > may not match up one-to-one with physical modules.
> 
> I know this has come up before, but I don't think it's been resolved.
> Should we allow logical devices (entities) to be made up of multiple
> functions, or should they be broken down into their basic functional
> components (with each component being a separate logical device/entity).
> 
> What are the issues associated with each approach?
 
See my earlier response to this question, which discussed MIB views.
 
> > >6) If more than one implements the chassis MIB, must all the
> > >   values be "consistent"?
> > 
> > Muahahaha.  Yes, on the basis that consistent means different but related
> > as opposed to identical.
> 
> It seems to me that the information must be identical, except for the
> time-related objects.
 
I agree, with the proviso that even the time-related objects must refer
to the same absolute time (note that their values are relative times in
the MIB, and thus would normally be different).
 
> > >9) What are some situations the it would be appropriate to use
> > >   a "sparse" slot table?
> > 
> > Any situation the implementor chooses.  You might choose to do that in a
> > 2-slot chassis or one the size of Texas.
> 
> Could interoperability problems arise out of letting the
> implementors choose?
 
I don't believe so.  Both implementation choices provide unambiguous 
information to a management station.  It's the difference between
saying "the slot is empty" and "there is nothing in the slot".  (One
advantage of retaining the conceptual row after a module is removed,
is that the time of the last removal can be stored in the MIB.)

Keith.