Re: [Roll] RPL-MIB

Hi Ralph,

thanks for your opinion on this.
I was hoping to minimize work, but you are probably right.
I will discuss with Juergen.

Peter

Ralph Droms schreef op 2014-02-13 02:53:
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:19 AM 2/10/14, peter van der Stok
> <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
>> The expectation is that MPL is used where RPL is used as well.
>> 
>> Otherwise a second document is suggested.
> 
> I think separate MIBs would be the appropriate architecture as MPL and
> RPL are separate protocols and may be deployed independently.
> 
> - Ralph
> 
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> Ralph Droms schreef op 2014-02-09 14:33:
>>> On Feb 7, 2014, at 5:31 AM 2/7/14, peter van der Stok
>>> <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>> Dear authors,
>>>> Is it possible to extend the RPL MIB with MPL parameters?
>>> Why would MPL parameters be added to the RPL MIB?  MPL and RPL share
>>> very little, if any, protocol or operational considerations.
>>> - Ralph
>>>> Easy suggestions are per interface the parameters:
>>>> DATA_MESSAGE_IMIN, DATA_MESSAGE_IMAX, 
>>>> DATA_MESSAGE_K,DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS
>>>> CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMIN, CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMAX, 
>>>> CONTROL_MESSAGE_K,CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS
>>>> per interface: the enabled MC addresses.
>>>> Measured values per seed and MC address: low seq nr, high seq nr
>>>> the number of messages received, number of messages repeated, number 
>>>> of messages rejected because c>k.
>>>> Looking forward to your reply,
>>>> Peter
>>>> --
>>>> Peter van der Stok
>>>> mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Roll mailing list
>>>> Roll@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll