Re: Implementation questions

Anil Rijsinghani <anil@levers.enet.dec.com> Thu, 22 July 1993 22:43 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12686; 22 Jul 93 18:43 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12682; 22 Jul 93 18:43 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08679; 22 Jul 93 18:43 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA06857; Thu, 22 Jul 93 18:02:31 -0400
X-Resent-To: fddi-mib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 22 Jul 1993 18:02:30 EDT
Errors-To: owner-fddi-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA06849; Thu, 22 Jul 93 18:02:24 -0400
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA09203; Thu, 22 Jul 93 15:02:21 -0700
Received: by us1rmc.bb.dec.com; id AA27992; Thu, 22 Jul 93 18:00:23 -0400
Message-Id: <9307222200.AA27992@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>
Received: from levers.enet; by us1rmc.enet; Thu, 22 Jul 93 18:00:50 EDT
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 93 18:00:50 EDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Anil Rijsinghani <anil@levers.enet.dec.com>
To: chris@andr.ub.com
Cc: fddi-mib@cs.utk.edu
Apparently-To: fddi-mib@cs.utk.edu, chris@andr.ub.com
Subject: Re: Implementation questions

> Is there any requirement/advantage to keep the MAC, Path and Port
> indices unique across all SMTs or is it sufficient to keep them unique
> with a given SMT?

They need to be unique only within an SMT -- also note the requirement
for correspondence with the SMT resource indices.

> The fddimibPATHIndex is defined as having a value from 3 to 255.  Do 
> these values have any special meaning or do they just start at 3 instead
> of 1 and get assigned as appropriate to the implementation?

As noted in the description, this restriction is only for local path
instances as opposed to primary/secondary.  See the ANSI SMT spec.

> The fddimibSMTNumber, fddimibMACNumber... all indicate that they are static
> for a given initialization of the management system.  Is this being changed
> along the lines of the new ifNumber to allow them to change when a new
> card is swapped in/out?

We missed this one, although the requirement for sequential assignment
of indices was removed.  I'll make a note of this for when the MIB
is advanced to Draft Standard.

Anil