Re: [Disman] another question about alarmMib..

Michael Thatcher <thatcher@redback.com> Wed, 17 December 2008 05:52 UTC

Return-Path: <disman-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: disman-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-disman-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75D828C135; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:52:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: disman@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: disman@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB8628C116 for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:53:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 523T-pmQmQac for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:53:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1753A68E0 for <disman@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:53:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7E1417200; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:52:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09246-06; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [155.53.44.238] (nurnberg.redback.com [155.53.44.238]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D857C417201; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <49483148.9030100@redback.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:52:56 -0800
From: Michael Thatcher <thatcher@redback.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
References: <4946D492.5070107@redback.com> <004701c95fb1$c30f9c00$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <49481B7C.1060301@redback.com> <000301c95fc7$8b51e320$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
In-Reply-To: <000301c95fc7$8b51e320$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:52:02 -0800
Cc: disman@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Disman] another question about alarmMib..
X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Management <disman.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/disman>
List-Post: <mailto:disman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org

Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -

  
From: "Michael Thatcher" <thatcher@redback.com>
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
Cc: <disman@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Disman] another question about alarmMib..
    
...
  
The description of alarmClearIndex says that "This object
has the same value as the alarmActiveIndex that this alarm
instance had when it was active".  Does this mean that
clear events cannot be placed in this table which do not
have a related alarm in the alarmActiveTable?
    
It sounds that way.

  
If there are multiple related entries in the alarmActiveTable,
does it matter which alarmActiveIndex value is used?  
    
I can't imagine why it would.  It does, however, seem to be
an argument for maintaining a 1:1 correspondence, even
though I doubt that that was the intent.

It would be good to hear from the folks who have actually
already implemented or deployed this MIB.
  

I have been hoping for some insight from someone who has implemented this mib.

mikeT