Re: [Idr] [IETFMIBS] SNMP bgpPeerTable IPV6

On (07/30/10 14:29), Simon Leinen wrote:
> To: Kalpesh Zinjuwadia <kzinjuwadia@force10networks.com>
> Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "ietfmibs@ietf.org" <ietfmibs@ietf.org>
> From: Simon Leinen <simon.leinen@switch.ch>
> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:29:19 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Idr] [IETFMIBS]  SNMP bgpPeerTable IPV6
> X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
> Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
> X-Spam-Flag: NO
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5
> 	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
> In-Reply-To:
> 	<D5D07AB53D722442AB59544CFF470EA41B3DB5629B@EXCH-CLUSTER-09.force10networks.com>
> X-Mailer: VM 8.1.0-devo-614 under 23.2.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin10.3.0)
> X-SWITCH-SCANNER: bypassed
> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:54:52 -0700
> X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
> Precedence: list
> List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>,
> 	<mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr>
> List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
> List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>,
> 	<mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
> Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org
> X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090203.4C5303FF.0171:SCFSTAT11644009,ss=1,fgs=0
> X-Source-IP: acsinet11.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]
> X-Auth-Type: Internal IP
> 
> > There is an ID for BGP4 MIBv2 which supports IPv6 AF (IPv6 peers,
> > NLRIs, etc). Not a public MIB yet. Check the vendor's MIB specs to
> > find out if it's supported and the enterprise-specific root OID.
> 
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-10
> 
> This is an extremely important MIB to get standardized.  As the
> original poster had said, how are we operators supposed to monitor
> IPv6 BGP peerings without something like this?
> 
> The I-D has been active (growing and shrinking) over at least nine
> years: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-00 is from July 2001.  Since I cannot
> currently follow the IDR WG, I don't know what's holding it up right now.
> Maybe just general loss of energy/shifting of priorities, which are
> unavoidable over such a long time.  But pushing this towards RFC (at
> whatever standards level) would be a very honorable and worthwhile
> thing to do.
> 
> > Force10 supports it under FORCE10-BGP4-V2-MIB
> 
> Thanks, that's great to know.  Force 10 just moved up two notches on
> my personal vendor sympathy scale.  Of course your feedback (and that
> of users on the operator side, if any) would be very useful for
> advancing this in IDR.
> -- 
> Simon.
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr