RE: [Mip4] Re: MIB for NEMOv4?

I agree that NEMOv4 MIBs should be not be bundled into 2006bis and
separation of MIBs is much more maintainable.

Kent  

-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Sjostrand [mailto:hans@ipunplugged.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:28 AM
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
Subject: [Mip4] Re: MIB for NEMOv4?

Hi Alex,

One of the things that we do in the 2006bis work is to create some mib
framework so that no more than the core mip management functions are in
the mobile ip mib. Basically to put the mipMIB OID under iana control. 
This makes it easy to extend mip with new management capabilities.

Add ons, such as udp tunnelling should go into separate mibs. This is
how all modern ietf mibs are done, see e.g. 15 mpls mibs under the
...mib-2.transmission.mplsStdMIB  in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers .

I don't know the NEMO management need enough to say for sure, but I'm
very reluctant to put in new stuff in 2006bis. Having a separate mib is
a lot better, easier and more maintainable. The big monolithic 2006bis
is really a bad idea, but there are a large set of legacy things that
where traditionally in rfc2006 so we couldn't go the whole way.

Looking forward to more mip mibs.
/// Hasse

On 2007-03-15 14:21, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Thanks Henrik,
>
> I was wondering whether this is a good time to discuss about NEMOv4
> (draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-00.txt) features in MIB 
> (draft-ietf-mip4-rfc2006bis-03.txt).
>
> Basically, there are few things that would be nice to be reflected in 
> the MIB:
> -Prefix Table (at HA).
> -Mobile Network Prefixes (at MN).
> -maybe others.
>
> So, the initial comment is whether it makes any sense to do these 
> NEMOv4-related additions to Mobile IPv4 MIB?  (because it may be 
> considered that the MIB done for NEMOv6, draft-ietf-nemo-mib-02.txt in

> NEMO WG, could treat IPv4 as well) (or because any other reason I
miss).
>
> Alex
>
> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> on 2007-03-15 12:03 Alexandru Petrescu said the following:
>>> Hi MIP4,
>>>
>>> draft-sjostrand-mip4-udptunnel-mib-01 talks about MIB for Mobile IP 
>>> when NAT Traversal is used.  As such contains knobs for keepalives, 
>>> force UDP, etc.  I can comment on the draft in detail separately.
>>>
>>> But I wonder whether this is the only ongoing draft that configures 
>>> MIB knobs for Mobile IP?  I am looking for a ongoing draft that 
>>> could eventually discuss NEMOv4 MIB knobs.  Or maybe in 
>>> draft-sjostrand too (provided scope changes), I don't know.
>>>
>>> A '2006bis' or '2206bis' was mentioned in another NEMO WG
discussion.
>>
>> Going to the mip4 status page (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mip4/) shows 
>> you the 2006bis document among the active mip4 WG documents.
>>
>> Going to the draft and rfc search page 
>> (http://tools.ietf.org/search/) produces one hit, which is also the
correct document.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>     Henrik
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
> ______________________________________________________________________
>

--
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4@ietf.org
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4@ietf.org
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/