[mpls] MIB DR review of draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-08.txt
"Joan Cucchiara" <jcucchiara@mindspring.com> Mon, 25 February 2008 07:00 UTC
Return-Path: <mpls-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-mpls-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mpls-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E12AD28C37B; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:00:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.416
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EDmiagTCZVEA; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:00:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B060228C203; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:00:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6747F3A6C0D; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:00:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BfxWQxsvjIIG; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:00:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3247E3A67F4; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:00:07 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=qQWbe0nQmQ+cN2Le7lY/n59REv1kPXrKn7Dh+udSwcikvOMyIVq0DyHxOf8Z3iRw; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [141.154.111.86] (helo=JoanPC) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1JTXJc-0001DS-JW; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:59:57 -0500
Message-ID: <0d6f01c8777c$50396d50$6601a8c0@JoanPC>
From: Joan Cucchiara <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>
To: Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, Joan Cucchiara <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>
References: <088f01c8287f$037cd750$0db96540@cisco.com> <7661CC97-5115-4C0F-BA1D-98E0AC05A717@lucidvision.com> <0bef01c8755c$955473c0$6601a8c0@JoanPC> <5EE88370-3546-4BCD-BBF1-F8A1B0D97377@lucidvision.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:01:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-ELNK-Trace: 4d68bbe9cb71969ea344cf2d1a8e60840a9da525759e2654123ad57138b28890eba5119d20b562f82601a10902912494350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 141.154.111.86
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, "MIB Doctors (E-mail)" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>, Agrahara S Kiran Koushik <kkoushik@cisco.com>
Subject: [mpls] MIB DR review of draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-08.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
MIB Dr review of draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-08.txt Tom, et al. Following are the review comments from the previous version of the MIB. There are a few overall comments followed by comments in order of the document. I have indicated that the comment has been "DONE", "NOT DONE" or if comment is a new comment "NEW". Thanks, Joan Overall COMMENTs --------------- *) MIB compiles cleanly with smiLint and smicngPRO. (applies to version 8) *) First overall comment has to do with the organization of the MIB module itself; a better way to represent the objects would be to have separate MIB modules for General, One2One and Facility. Even the scalar objects seem dependent on which method is being used so seems that separate MIB modules would help to clarify this. Please comment. NOT DONE. (Think we need to get this comment addressed since many of the other comments marked NOT DONE are related to this.) *) I tried to be very specific about this during the commenting, but basically would ask that the names used be consistent with the MPLS-TE-STD-MIB. For example, Tunnel, Index, Instance, Ingress, Egress and other words are spelled out when used in an object's name, but in this MIB Module these are abbreviated. Just looking for some consistency with the naming conventions used in the 2 MIBs since they are tightly coupled. DONE but not completely. This needs to be checked throughout the document since it is not updated consistenly, e.g. * Several places in the document use: mplsFrrTunARHopTable and this table was renamed mplsFrrTunnelARHopTable so please make this correction throughout entire document. COMMENTS ON DOC (as they appear in the doc) --------------------------------------------- *) Abstract: In particular, it describes managed objects for Multiprotocol Label Switching fast rerouting. suggestion to specify the 2 fast reroute methods: ...managed objects used to support two fast reroute (FRR) methods for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) based traffic engineering (TE). The two methods are one-to-one backup method and facility backup method. DONE. *) Date on the page headers do not match date of document. DONE. *) TOC References is off by a space. Also, the subsections 1.1, 4.1, 4.2 (maybe others) are missing from the TOC. DONE, BUT some sections have incorrect page numbers. Also, some spacing of off. *) 1. Introduction Would add RFC3811 also, i.e. used in conjunction with [RFC3811], [RFC3812] and [RFC3813]. DONE. *) NEW: following needs updating s/mpls@uu.net/mpls@ietf.org/ *) 2. Terminology Should state the title of the referenced docs here. So This document uses terminology defined in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture" [RFC3031] document and the "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels" [RFC4090] document. DONE. *) 4. Brief Description of the MIB Module Objects. s/Objects./Objects Would retitle this section: Overview of the MIB Module DONE. *)I am confused by the term "bypass" in this section. Are you referring to the one-to-one backup method described in [RFC4090]? Could the terms one-to-one and facility be used consistently? " The specification [RFC4090] stipulates two different approaches to implementing MPLS TE fast reroute: bypass and facility backup. As such, the MIB module defined in this document" s/bypass/one-to-one backup/ NOT DONE (bypass refers to a type of tunnel, not a backup method). "LSRs do not implement both facility and bypass methods at the same time, the Agent Compliance section in this module defined herein is divided into portions, one for each method allowing any LSR to implement only the objects applicable to the method they have implemneted." Either correct the above statement: s/Agent Compliance/Conformance s/implemneted/implemented or reword: "LSRs do not implement both one-to-one backup method and facility backup method at the same time, thus, the Conformance section specifies conformance based on the two fast reroute methods. This allows a developer to implement only the objects applicable to the fast reroute method supported." DONE. *) I would like to understand what is meant by common practice? Is it that vendors don't support both methods at the same time, or is it that operators don't mix these 2 methods in a network? NOT DONE. Part of my confusion is the phrase "common practice has shown that LSRs do not implement both..." Is the issue that LSRs do not support both, or that operators choose to configure only one method on an LSR? In other words, could you be specific about what the common practice is? In my mind, this is important to your justification of why the MIB is only going to allow one kind of backup method on an LSR. *) 4.1 mplsFrrConstTable Please use the entire name Constraints, as in mplsFrrConstraintsTable. DONE, BUT TOC needs to be updated with new tabel name. *) 4.2 mplsFrrTunARHopTable Please use mplsFrrTunnelARHopTable to match with mplsTunnelARHopTable. First sentence: s/mplsTunnelARHop table/mplsTunnelARHopTable DONE, BUT TOC and other places need to be updated with new table name. *) 4.3 mplsFrrOne2OnePlrTable "The mplsFrrOne2OnePlrTable is an optional table that contains lists of PLRs that initiated detour LSPs to protect tunnel instances. As such, it is only required for LSRs implementing the detour backup method. In these cases, the detour LSPs are reflected in the mplsFrrDetourTable." I don't understand the above. Is this table mandatory when the one-to-one backup method is used? If so, shouldn't that be stated. The definition from RFC 4090 states: "PLR: Point of Local Repair. The head-end LSR of a backup tunnel or a detour LSP." So the phrase "contains lists of PLRs" is confusing. Also, the phrase "detour backup method" is confusing, are you referring to the one-to-one backup method? DONE. 4.4 mplsFrrDetourTable *) Could this be renamed to mplsFrrOne2OneDetourTable? DONE, BUT TOC needs to be updated. *) NEW (NIT) "In the mplsTunnelTable, the higher 16 bits of the tunnel instance SHOULD be used as detour instance. Note that for the protected..." s/be used as/be uses as a/ *) Is this table mandatory when the one-to-one backup method is used? If so, could that be stated? "This table is optional and is only required in case mplsFrrOne2OnePlrTable is supported." If you state that the table is mandatory for the backup method, then think the above statement is not necessary. DONE. *) 4.5 mplsFrrFacilityDBTable s/mplsFrrDBTable/mplsFrrFacRouteDBTable Could this be renamed to mplsFrrFacilty DONE. *) Could you state that this table is mandatory when the facility backup method is used? DONE. *) 5. Handling IPv6 Tunnels draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-03 does not appear as a reference, please add to Normative References. DONE. *) 6 (MIB MODULE) *) LAST-UPDATED and REVISION is incorrect DONE. *) NEW. Please remove the REVISION/DESCRIPTION clauses except for the latest version of the MIB. The REVISION clause is typically used for RFC revisions (not draft revisions). *) DESCRIPTION: ...This MIB module is part of RFC 4327; see the RFC itself for full legal notices. needs to be changed to something like This version of this MIB module is part of RFC xxxx; See the RFC itself for full legal notices. -- RFC EDITOR: please replace xxxx with actual number -- and remove this note. NOT DONE. *) Please change to yyy ::= { mplsStdMIB yyy } -- RFC-editor please fill in -- yyy with value assigned by IANA, -- see section 18.1 for details DONE. *) Please change mplsFrrNotif to mplsFrrNotifications DONE. *) Doesn't seem necessary to have mplsFrrScalars OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mplsFrrMIB 1 } mplsFrrObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mplsFrrMIB 2 } Since Scalars are objects, right? So maybe just use mplsFrrObjects mplsFrrObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mplsFrrMIB 1 } mplsFrrConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mplsFrrMIB 2 } NOT DONE. *) Also, please move mplsFrrConformance under mplsFrrObjects. NOT DONE. *) As stated above, I believe this MIB should be organized in 3 separate MIB Modules. This would help to clarify what actually needs to be supported when using One2One or Facility. The following scalars seem to be dependent on the type of backup method: mplsFrrDetourIncoming mplsFrrDetourOutgoing mplsFrrDetourOriginating mplsFrrConfIfs mplsFrrActProtectedIfs mplsFrrConfProtectionTuns mplsFrrActProtectionTuns mplsFrrActProtectedLSPs mplsFrrNotifsEnabled mplsFrrNotifMaxRate So why are these under General Objects? DONE (sort of). The scalars which apply to one-to-one backup or facility backup should be co-located with their respective tables. This is just a cut-n-paste and would go a long way to make the MIB Module more readable. *) NEW the mplsFrrFacObjects name should be changed to mplsFrrFacilityObjects. The tables use the entire word Facility so this would be for consistency. *) mplsFrrProtectionMethod Scalar should probably be moved to being the first scalar. Also, I think an unknown(1) should be added. The reason is that if a device has been rebooted, due to a change from one fast reroute method to another, and if something were misconfigured, then it might be that the fast reroute method would be "unknown" until a correction was made. Obviously, "unknown" would be read-only and not settable. Would suggest: unknown(1), onetooneBackup(2), facilityBackup(3) DONE. *) Last sentence s/notified/generated/ DONE. *) NEW for mplsFrrProtectedMethod Please include in the DESCRIPTION clause what error should be returned if the value of unknown(1) is set. *) NEW, most of the DESCRIPTION clauses in the other objects which refer to this object (mplsFrrProtectedMethod) need to be updated (this means most of the scalars). *) mplsFrrSwitchover Should this be a Gauge32? DONE. *) mplsFrrNotifsEnabled. Why is this object needed? NOT DONE. Please answer the question wrt RFC3413. *) mplsFrrNotificationsMaxRate Are there other objects which indicate if events are being thrown away due to this throttling? (Would that be useful?) NOT DONE. Please answer the question. I would think such an object (or objects) would be useful information if throttling is done. *) mplsFrrDetourIncoming Should be put with the oneToOne objects. Should this be a Counter32 or Gauge32? NOT DONE. *)Please rename to mplsFrrIncomingDetourLSPs DONE. *) mplsFrrDetourOutgoing Should be put with the oneToOne objects. Should this be a Counter32 or Gauge32? NOT DONE. *) please rename to mplsFrrOutgoingDetourLSPs DONE. *) Could mplsFrrConfIfs be renamed to: mplsFrrConfiguredInterfaces DONE. *)Also, this should apply only to facilityBackup, so could be a Gauge32 or Counter32? NOT DONE. *) mplsFrrActProtectedIfs What does the Act stand for? Is this Active or Actual? Could this be renamed to mplsFrrActiveInterfaces/mplsFrrActualInterfaces DONE. *) mplsFrrConfProtectionsTuns Could this be renamed mplsFrrConfiguredBypassTunnels ? DONE. *) NEW could DESCRIPTION say the value must be 0 and should be ignored. *) mplsFrrActProtectionTuns Could this be renamed to mplsFrrActiveBypassTunnels? DONE. *) NEW DESCRIPTION should say, the value must be 0 and should be ignored. *) mplsFrrActProtectedLSPs could this be renamed to: mplsFrrActiveProtectedLSPs? DONE. *) NEW DESCRIPTION should say, the value must be 0 and should be ignored. *) mplsFrrConstTable Please rename to mplsFrrConstraintsTable DONE. *) mplsFrrConstEntry OBJECT-TYPE Please add a REFERENCE clause and add the reference from the DESCRIPTION clause to the REFERENCE clause. DONE. s/speciifed/specified DONE. "contains at a tunnel ingress." Should be contains a tunnel ingress. DONE. *) RFC 3209 Does not appear in the References. (This reference is mentioned several times) DONE. *) mplsFrrConstIfIndex please rename to mplsFrrConstIfIndexOrZero DONE. *) mplsFrrConstTunnelInstance s/identication/identification DONE. *) NEW mplsFrrConstraintHopLimit According to RFC4090 this looks to be a byte, so why is there not a range on this? *) mplsFrrConstBandwidth s/reserved for detour/reserved for a detour DONE. *) MplsFrrTunARHop please use Tunnel Also, other object names use Protection or Protected so please use entire word here DONE. *) mplsFrrOne2OnePlrTable DESCRIPTION is a little bit awkward "...that initiated the detour LSPs that traverse this node." maybe the last "that" is not needed? DONE. *) mplsFrrOne2OnePlrEntry states: "...An entry in this table is only created by an SNMP agent as instructed by an MPLS signaling protocol." But there are read-create objects, so want to make sure that these read-create objects are allowed to be changed after a row has been created? DONE. Please spell out Tunnel, Ingress, Egress, Index and Instance in these names. This is to match the MPLS-TE-STD-MIB. MOST DONE. Inst still being used. *) mplsFrrOne2OnePlrRunIngrLSRId s/identity/identify *) mplsFrrOne2OnePlrId Please add a REFERENCE clause DONE. *) mplsFrrOne2OnePlrAvoidNAddrType mplsFrrOne2OnePlrAvoidNAddr What does the N stand for? DONE. *) Please add REFERENCE to mplsFrrOne2OnePlrAvoidNAddr DONE. *) mplsFrrDetourTable Please use Tunnel, Index, Instance DONE. *) mplsFrrDetourActive Please add to the DESCRIPTION what true(1) means. DONE. *) mplsFrrDetourMerging name suggestion: mplsFrrDetourMergedStatus SYNTAX INTEGER { none(1), protectedTunnel(2), detour(3) } Could the above labels be changed to: notMerged(1), mergedWithProtectedTunnel(2) mergedWithDetour(3) DONE. *)Also the description talks of setting this, but it is a read-only. Please just get rid of the phrase "set to" NOT DONE. *) NEW, mplsFrrOne2OneDetourMergedDetourInst Same comment as above. Please just the the value is, as the phrase "set to" is confusing with read-only objects. *) mplsFrrFacRouteDBTable Please expand Fac to Facility, Tun to Tunnel, Idx to Index, Inst to Instance, Ingr to Ingress and Egr to Egress. Also, Prot is used but other places in this MIB spell out Protection, or Protected. DONE. Would also take out the word Route in these object names, so mplsFrrFacRouteDBTable becomes mplsFrrFacilityDBTable DONE. *) mplsFrrFacRouteDBTable DESCRIPTION s/mplsFrrDBTable/mplsFrrFacRouteDBTable (The above occurs in other objects of this table, so please check the DESCRIPTIONs.) DONE. The protecting tunnel is indicated by the second two indexes (mplsTunnelIndex and mplsTunnelInstance) and represents a valid mplsTunnelEntry. Note that the tunnel The above sentence is confusing. Are you saying that the second two indexes in this table have the same values as mplsTunnelIndex and mplsTunnelInstance? DONE. *) mplsFrrFacRouteProtIfIdx s/applies/apply DONE. *) mplsFrrFacRouteProtTunIdx Please add a REFERENCE clause. In general, if the DESCRIPTION specifies a reference, then there should probably be a REFERENCE clause. DONE. *) Many of the DESCRIPTIONs state: "...on the specified interface as specified in the mplsFrrFacRouteIfProtIdx." Could this be reworded as: "...on the interface specified by mplsFrrFacRouteIfProtIdx." DONE. *) mplsFrrFacDBNumProtTunOnIf Please supply the specified interface's name. DONE. *) NEW mplsFrrFacilityDBNumProtectingTunnelOnIf s/speficied/specified/ *) mplsFrrRacRouteDBNumProtLspOnIf Please supply the specified interface's name. DONE. *) mplsFrrFacRouteDBProtTunStatus Which protected tunnel is denoted here? DONE. *) Same question for mplsFrrFacRouteDBProtTunResvBw DONE. *) mplsFrrFacRouteDBProtTunResvBw Please specify which object (or objects) from the MPLS-TE-STD-MIB are being repeated. DONE. *) mplsFrrFacProtected The name doesn't say much about this notification. Could we think of a more descriptive name, e.g. (suggestion only) mplsFrrFacilityInitialBkupTunnelInvoked? DONE. s/network loading/network load DONE. DESCRIPTION is a little confusing. Could you just say that the notification needs to be sent prior to forwarding data ? DONE. Last paragraph: "Note this notification only applicable..." change to: Note this notification is only applicable DONE. *) mplsFrrFacUnProtected The name doesn't say much about this notification. Could we think of a more descriptive name, e.g. (suggestion only) mplsFrrFacilityFinalTunnelRestored? DONE, okay suggestion only. s/network loading/network load DONE. Last paragraph: "Note this notification only applicable..." change to: Note this notification is only applicable DONE. Conformance -------------- *) Full conformance DESCRIPTION of the one-to-one or facilty methods state: "...and is optional for those which do not." Why is it optional? Is it possible to support these objects in any meaningful way? NOT DONE. read-only Compliance ----------------------- *) Comment is misplaced since it appears before a scalar object -- mplsFrrConstTable DONE. *) Missing from Read-only conformance: mplsFrrNotifsEnabled mplsFrrNotifMaxRate mplsFrrConstSetupPrio mplsFrrconstHoldingPrio mplsFrrConstInclAnyAffinity mplsFrrConstInclAllAffinity mplsFrrConstExclAnyAffinity mplsFrrConstBandwidth mplsFrrOne2OnePlrSenderAddrType mplsFrrOne2OnePlrSenderAddr DONE. *) 7. Security Considerations configuration and/or performanc statistics. Administrators not wishing to reveal this information should consider these objects sensitive/vulnerable and take precautions so they are not revealed. s/performanc/performance DONE. *) 9. Acknowledgments Please begin this section with: This document is a product of the MPLS Working Group. NOT DONE. *) REFERENCES are not in order of RFC number NOT DONE. *) 10.1 Normative References [RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., Atlas, A., "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC4090, May 2005. and A. Atlas, s/RFC4090/RFC 4090 DONE. *) [RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A. and Nadeau, T., "MPLS Label Switch Router Management Information Base ", RFC 3813, June 2004 and T. Nadeau, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) Management Information Base" NOT DONE. *) [RFC3291] Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J. Schoenwaelder, "TextualConventions for Internet Network Addresses", RFC 3291, May 2002. s/TextualConventions/Textual Conventions DONE (N/A). *) 10.2 Informative References *) RFC3031 should probably be Normative, it is currently listed as Informative DONE. -- end-- _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] MIB DR review of draft-ietf-mpls-fastrerou… Joan Cucchiara
- Re: [mpls] MIB DR review of draft-ietf-mpls-fastr… Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [mpls] MIB DR review of draft-ietf-mpls-fastr… Joan Cucchiara
- Re: [mpls] MIB DR review of draft-ietf-mpls-fastr… Thomas Nadeau