IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IETFMIBS] Extending InetAddress(Type) for BGP Multicast VPNs

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Sun, 15 January 2012 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: ietfmibs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfmibs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CEE21F846F for <ietfmibs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:02:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.276
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.323, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qz2kFV18ZzNM for <ietfmibs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:02:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F088421F8469 for <ietfmibs@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:02:30 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAC/cEk+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABErTaBBYFyAQEBAQMSHgoxDgwEAgEIDQEDBAEBAQoGDAsBBgFFCQgBAQQBEggBGaF1mmGLNGMEmwSFC4dE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,513,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="324543521"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Jan 2012 09:02:27 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Jan 2012 08:49:06 -0500
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:02:23 +0100
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0406F498A6@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DB4A319-8AA8-4510-B2A9-42A06513F1C0@juniper.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [IETFMIBS] Extending InetAddress(Type) for BGP Multicast VPNs
Thread-Index: AczS1+WQapo71X+NQv6KaS0eTHol6QAtTe/Q
References: <CBFBAE7D-EFBC-4833-9DD5-C2659C00F419@juniper.net><20120109234012.GA93650@elstar.local><52539B15-9568-486D-9E04-5F753DA2BFAC@juniper.net><20120110105431.GC94367@elstar.local><4F0C35ED.8060705@innovationslab.net><28D0A91D-4C9B-4562-9495-639A38394194@juniper.net><20120110144109.GD95306@elstar.local> <4DB4A319-8AA8-4510-B2A9-42A06513F1C0@juniper.net>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: Jeff Haas <jhaas@juniper.net>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Cc: ietfmibs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IETFMIBS] Extending InetAddress(Type) for BGP Multicast VPNs
X-BeenThere: ietfmibs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF MIB Discussion list <ietfmibs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietfmibs>, <mailto:ietfmibs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietfmibs>
List-Post: <mailto:ietfmibs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietfmibs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietfmibs>, <mailto:ietfmibs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:02:31 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietfmibs-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietfmibs-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Jeff Haas
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Cc: ietfmibs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IETFMIBS] Extending InetAddress(Type) for BGP Multicast
> VPNs
> 
> Juergen,
> 
> On Jan 10, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > If the reachability info BGP is carrying turns out to be BGP
> specific,
> > then having a BGP specific TC to represent it seems quite OK. Is any
> > non-BGP protocol using the formats and the encodings I looked at
> > earlier this morning? If not, these formats seems to be rather BGP
> > specific.
> 
> It seems that I will be authoring (and probably maintaining) another
> BGP TC MIB for this purpose.
> 
> Could the group share any experiences with MIB documents that note
code
> points by reference?  The BGP protocol suite continues to evolve at a
> very steady pace and it would be nice if I could point to new code
> points at IANA rather than having a MIB document that could never be
> stable enough to really reach an RFC, except perhaps for a snapshot.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 

Hi Jeff,

Do you refer to the IANA maintained MIB modules listed at
http://www.iana.org/protocols? The policy for extending each of the
modules is defined typically in the RFC where the TC is defined. If for
example 'Expert Review' (as the policy is for many of these) IANA passes
the requests to the expert designated by the IESG, who is evaluating and
advising IANA. I think that the process is well known and works pretty
well, but other people are invited to share their experiences. 

Dan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email