Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal

Don Goodspeed <dgoodspe@EXCITE.COM> Tue, 29 October 2002 20:32 UTC

Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23524 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:32:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from walnut (209.119.0.61) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <12.00799E85@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:35:14 -0500
Received: from DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM by DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 356533 for OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:35:14 -0500
Received: from 207.159.120.60 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0f) with TCP; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:35:13 -0400
Received: by xmxpita.excite.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id 78B9D109EE1; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:35:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [63.104.212.252] by xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com via HTTP; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:35:09 EST
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: ID = b4f718530cf8af0dd8df25e0425ffee0
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: dgoodspe@excite.com
X-Mailer: PHP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <20021029203509.78B9D109EE1@xmxpita.excite.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:35:09 -0500
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
From: Don Goodspeed <dgoodspe@EXCITE.COM>
Subject: Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal
To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Rohit and all,

In our work on the ISIS MIB update with Jeff Parker, myself, and
others, we are keeping the TLV contents in their raw hex form
and are not interpreting any of them further, including TE
info.  We leave it up to the CLI or network manangement system
to interpret further (which they'll do better than the MIB
can).  And it's more extensible since any changes to TLVs do
not require a subsequent MIB update in order to support.

However, I do feel we can include administrative items in
the MIB such as TE support (already in OSPF's mib update),
TE metric (either in the ospfIfTable or the ospfIfMetric
table), and administrative group.  It's the bandwidth
reservation stuff that's trickier.

-don

 --- On Tue 10/29, Rohit Dube  wrote:
From: Rohit Dube [mailto: rohit@XEBEO.COM]
To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:11:18 -0500
Subject: Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal

> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:46:31 -0500 "Singh, Ajay" writes:
> =>Hello Venkata,Acee, Rohit,
> =>  With regards to OSPF-TE mib requirements, i would like to differ
> from what
> =>venkata has to say. OSPF - TE requirements as is, are not part of
> OSPF
> =>protocol requirements/ of any use in OSPF networks. Its only that
> OSPF acts
> =>as a transport mechanism to propagate the TE info in the network(
> which
> =>quite often would be a superset of OSPF network(TE links and
> associated
> =>nodes may not be running OSPF for that matter)). Injection( and hence
> its
> =>generation) of this TE info, per se, should not lie in the perview of
> OSPF
> =>group, as the requirements are to be dealt with by the users of the
> =>information( e.g connecting MPLS modules, LMP etc) . Hence, is it
> right to
> =>develop the OSPF-TE mib as an OSPF working group item.
> =>Please let me know disconnects in my understandings.
> =>Thanks
> =>Ajay
>
> Ajay,
>
> Acee and I discussed this. I would agree with you. Any OSPF-TE mib is
> likely to be equally relevant to ISIS. I would prefer to not get into
> specifying this here - if at all, the TEWG can specify (perhaps they
> do already) the contents of the TED to be extracted into a MIB.
>
> Regards,
> --rohit.
>
> PS: I am cc'ing the list as well. Hope you don't mind.
>

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!