[pim] RE: some doubts about draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09 and draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-01
"David McWalter" <DMcW@dataconnection.com> Mon, 05 March 2007 14:38 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 1HOEKq-00048O-N8; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:38:44 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOEKo-00046v-F3; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:38:42 -0500
Received: from smtp2.dataconnection.com ([192.91.191.8] helo=enfismtp2.datcon.co.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOEGv-0006oh-Hp; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:34:42 -0500
Received: from enfimail2.datcon.co.uk ([172.19.14.250]) by enfismtp2.datcon.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:34:36 +0000
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:34:35 -0000
Message-ID: <8AC1AD08D396174DBC4E6D44EFACCFB102BC79B8@enfimail2.datcon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <000d01c75f2b$c2bf7c30$0301a8c0@hyluan>
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: AcdfK8bUsWF0s8bVReKsNAlqrlKjiwABki7g
From: David McWalter <DMcW@dataconnection.com>
To: LuanHaiYan <luanhy79@126.com>, pim@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2007 14:34:36.0291 (UTC) FILETIME=[6604CD30:01C75F33]
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7e267523e0685e5aa2dbbdde4b659686
Cc: bharat_joshi@infosys.com, ietf-web@ietf.org
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="===============1055219401=="
Errors-To: pim-bounces@ietf.org
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?
_______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
- [pim] RE: some doubts about draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2… David McWalter
- [pim] RE: some doubts about draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2… bharat_joshi