[pim] RE: some doubts about draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09 and draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-01

"bharat_joshi" <bharat_joshi@infosys.com> Mon, 05 March 2007 15:32 UTC

Return-path: <pim-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOFAl-00022e-Ce; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:32:23 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOFAj-00022Y-NF for pim@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:32:21 -0500
Received: from kecgate02.infosysconsulting.com ([61.95.162.76] helo=Kecgate02.infosys.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOFAh-0003is-Br for pim@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:32:21 -0500
Received: from indhubbhs01.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.81]) by Kecgate02.infosys.com with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:00:48 +0530
Received: from BLRKECMSG14.ad.infosys.com ([172.22.147.6]) by indhubbhs01.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Mar 2007 21:01:08 +0530
Received: from BLRKECMSG01.ad.infosys.com ([172.25.213.131]) by BLRKECMSG14.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Mar 2007 21:01:07 +0530
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:00:48 +0530
Message-ID: <6031539A3C7B964581EFCE2E205D6EEF01F8A863@BLRKECMSG01.ad.infosys.com>
In-Reply-To: <8AC1AD08D396174DBC4E6D44EFACCFB102BC79B8@enfimail2.datcon.co.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: some doubts about draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09 and draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-01
Thread-Index: AcdfK8bUsWF0s8bVReKsNAlqrlKjiwABki7gAAHOo6A=
References: <000d01c75f2b$c2bf7c30$0301a8c0@hyluan> <8AC1AD08D396174DBC4E6D44EFACCFB102BC79B8@enfimail2.datcon.co.uk>
From: bharat_joshi <bharat_joshi@infosys.com>
To: David McWalter <DMcW@dataconnection.com>, LuanHaiYan <luanhy79@126.com>, pim@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2007 15:31:07.0902 (UTC) FILETIME=[4B9391E0:01C75F3B]
X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8a8edadb931b45358a2fef0aabeedeb2
Cc:
Subject: [pim] RE: some doubts about draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09 and draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-01
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0001546738=="
Errors-To: pim-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,



       AFAIK, there is an E-BSR elected for each scope zone. Inet
Address Type is not involved here.



       But as you rightly pointed out, this object should have read-only
permission. Thanks for pointing this out. I shall fix this in next
revision.



Thanks & Regards,

Bharat



________________________________

From: David McWalter [mailto:DMcW@dataconnection.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 8:05 PM
To: LuanHaiYan; pim@ietf.org
Cc: ietf-web@ietf.org; bharat_joshi
Subject: RE: some doubts about draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09 and
draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-01



Greetings.



The PIM WG owns these drafts, so I think these questions belong on the
list pim@ietf.org.



1.  I don't think it's usual to add router instance information to
protocol MIBs.  I'm no VPN expert, so you might like to check this draft
for some suggestions.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-vr-mib-04.txt



2. Yes, this is inconsistent.  I believe a different E-BSR can be
selected per address type as well as per-zone, so not-accessible seems
correct.  I think the fix is to add AddressType to the index of
pimBsrElectedBSRTable.  Right, Bharat?



Regards,

David McWalter.



 -----Original Message-----
From: LuanHaiYan [mailto:luanhy79@126.com]
Sent: 05 March 2007 13:40
To: ietf-web@ietf.org
Cc: bharat_joshi@infosys.com; David McWalter
Subject: some doubts about draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09 and
draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-01

hi,

   I have some doubts abouts draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-01
and`draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09.txt.

I will appreciate it if anybody could anwser it.

  

   1.  For PIM (*,G) State Table/PIM (S,G) State Table/PIM (S,G,RPT)
State Table in draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09, instances information is not
considered, if routers can support mvpn, maybe  there are same
(*,G)/(S,G). how to support them?

 

   2. In Page13 of draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-01, BSR Elected-BSR Table is
defined as follows:

     `
   -- The BSR Elected-BSR Table
   --



   pimBsrElectedBSRTable OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX     SEQUENCE OF PimBsrElectedBSREntry
       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
       STATUS     current
       DESCRIPTION
               "The (conceptual) table containing information about
               elected BSRs.  The table contains one row for each
               zone for which there is an elected BSR."
       ::= { pimBsrObjects 4 }



   pimBsrElectedBSREntry OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX     PimBsrElectedBSREntry
       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
       STATUS     current
       DESCRIPTION
               "An entry (conceptual row) in the
                pimBsrElectedBSRTable."
       INDEX      { pimBsrElectedBSRZoneIndex }
       ::= { pimBsrElectedBSRTable 1 }



   PimBsrElectedBSREntry ::= SEQUENCE {
       pimBsrElectedBSRZoneIndex        InetZoneIndex,
       pimBsrElectedBSRAddressType      InetAddressType,
       pimBsrElectedBSRAddress          InetAddress,
       pimBsrElectedBSRPriority         Unsigned32,
       pimBsrElectedBSRHashMaskLength   Unsigned32,
       pimBsrElectedBSRExpiryTime       TimeTicks
   }



   pimBsrElectedBSRZoneIndex OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX     InetZoneIndex
       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
       STATUS     current
       DESCRIPTION
               "The zone index uniquely identifies the zone on a
               device to which this Elected BSR is attached. There
               is one entry for each zone in ipMcastZoneTable.
               Scope-level information for this zone can be extracted
               from ipMcastZoneTable in IP MCAST MIB."
       ::= { pimBsrElectedBSREntry 1 }



   pimBsrElectedBSRAddressType OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX     InetAddressType
       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
       STATUS     current
       DESCRIPTION
               "The address type of the elected BSR."
       ::= { pimBsrElectedBSREntry 2 }





pimBsrElectedBSRZoneIndex is the index of elected bsr table,

why  is pimBsrElectedBSRAddressType defined as not-accessible?

or maybe should it be read-only?





**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the Infosys e-mail system.
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim