Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 06:31:46PM -0400, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> Now, I may have egg on my face because I missed a 
> proposal, but I don't think I've seen a general proposal to put 
> prefix-limit-exceeded into the BGP MIB. Yes, I recognize the actual 
> (local) prefix limit functionality is implementation specific, but if 
> it's worth doing remotely, it's worth doing locally.

Speaking as MIB editor, IMO the MIB should reflect protocol elements.
If we put max prefix into some ORF, it will probably make it into
the extension MIB for that ORF.

But, to provide a counter example, the l3vpn group decided to
put in "water marks" to represent the prefix limits.  This was
outside of the protocol, but desired by the working group.  Similarly,
if there is WG consensus on having this in the MIB, we can add
it regardless of whether we choose to do such a thing for an ORF
MIB that carries prefix limits.  (Similar if we do a dynamic capability
extention MIB to accomodate the other major proposal.)

However, if we choose to put in our own "water marks", we risk
conflict with the l3vpn implementation of the same since we carry
2547 type reachability over BGP too.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr