IP MIB issues
shawn.routhier@windriver.com Fri, 26 March 2004 19:04 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08080 for <ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:04:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6wcv-00030A-02 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:04:21 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2QJ4KvX011532 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:04:20 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6wcu-0002zv-Q3 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:04:20 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08077 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:04:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6wcs-0005OG-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:04:18 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6wbz-0005KR-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:03:24 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6wbf-0005Gf-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:03:03 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6wah-0002da-3D; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:02:03 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6wa6-0002b5-EY for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:01:26 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07913 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:01:23 -0500 (EST)
From: shawn.routhier@windriver.com
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6wa3-00058z-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:01:23 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6wZ6-00052s-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:00:25 -0500
Received: from unknown-1-11.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11] helo=mail.wrs.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6wYK-0004u4-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:59:36 -0500
Received: from ala-mta03.windriver.com (ala-mta03 [147.11.57.132]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05796; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ala-mta03.wrs.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <HM2G52D2>; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:58:53 -0800
Message-ID: <47DD7107796EF94CBE7873B8F31DF2C3CB074B@ala-mail01.wrs.com>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: brian@innovationslab.net, ipv6mib@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, kzm@cisco.com
Subject: IP MIB issues
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:58:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL, HTML_MESSAGE, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60
There were two suggested changes to the IP MIB that may not have had sufficient discussion during the WG last call. The first is a simple renaming of some objects in order to provide better clarity. The second is the removal of an object from the IPv6 interface table as it may a) not be useful b) be in the wrong table. The document has been through WG last call and through IESG last call. There are a small number of editorial revisions required from the IESG last call so a new revision will be created. Including the following changes would be simple. The chairs will be sending another piece of mail to specify when the deadline for comments is. ** For issue 1 the original request described it as such: I believe that use of "AdminStatus" in ipv4InterfaceAdminStatus and ipv6InterfaceAdminStatus is confusing. These are not "AdminStatus" in the same sense as ifAdminStatus as is explained in section 3.2.2. Rather these enable or disable the connectivity between a particular version of IP and (one of) the ifIndex on top of which it operates. These should really be xxxInterfaceEnableStatus. My previous position was to skip this change as it did not seem to be a major issue and I was attempting to avoid additional changes to the MIB. My current position is that as I need to make changes anyway I may as well include this change. If there is no discussion I shall change the names of these objects. If you feel that the names of these objects should not be changed send mail by the deadline that the chairs specify. ** For issue 2 we have the following discussion: Keith: Why is ipv6InterfacePhysicalAddress defined in draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-update? For all instances for which it is defined, i.e., all values of i, I believe the value of ipv6InterfacePhysicalAddress.i is always same as the value of ifPhysAddress.i Thus, it is redundant, right ? ** Shawn: While I don't have experience with them I've been told by other people that there are cases where the addresses may be different. I believe the example given was an ether switch wherein each interface might have its own physical address but the box elects to use a single ether address for some or most purposes. I can try and find the old description if you'd like more. <I was unable to find a better description to send to Keith.> ** Keith: This example: "an ether switch wherein each interface might have its own physical address but the box elects to use a single ether address for some or most purposes" has long been modeled in the Bridge MIB WG as the "switch" having an internal interface with its own MAC address which id independent of its external interfaces. In any case, it's not IPv6-specific. That is, if such an object were needed, it would be needed for IPv4 as well, or any past internetwork protocol (e.g., DECNET) or any future internetwork protocol (IPv9). Bottom line: I believe the solution to this issue is to have an extra ifTable row for the second MAC address. Even if I'm wrong, it's an ifTable issue, not an IPv6 (or IPv4) issue, and therefore must not be in this MIB. ** Previously I was attempting to maintain a potentially useful object. Upon reflection I have decided that if a better justification for keeping the object can't be found it should be removed. If there is no discussion I shall remove this object. If you feel it is a useful object and should be kept send mail by the deadline that the chairs specify. regards, Shawn A. Routhier -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- IP MIB issues shawn.routhier
- Re: IP MIB issues Brian Haberman
- RE: [ipv6mib] IP MIB issues Dave Thaler