Re: portDown/portUp

[Anil Rijsinghani <[e-mail]>]

> Agree with Paul and Anil, but if we go further, because of the
> same reason we may need some other traps (Duplicate address found
> for example?)

    Pablo,

    Consistent with the recommendation in RFC-1215 to define new traps
    sparingly, and following a WG meeting prior to the advancement of
    the FDDI MIB to PS, we had decided to eliminate traps defined
    at the time.  (I don't believe that portDown/portUp were amongst
    those defined in the document.)

    However from operational experience so far, we (and at least one other
    vendor) have found that portDown traps are needed, at the least.  Two
    customers have specifically asked for them.  I guess Duplicate
    address found could be another reason for network problems, but
    it doesn't seem to have been encountered in practise often enough to
    be considered a real problem.  This is why I proposed portDown
    at least.  The fewer the traps we define the better, I believe.

    Anil