MIB question - default BFD enable status?
Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Wed, 10 August 2005 20:17 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E2x0s-0001s4-4l; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:17:22 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E2x0q-0001rY-AE for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:17:20 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01166 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:17:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net ([165.212.64.22] helo=gwo2.mbox.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E2xYz-0004hM-Ln for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:52:39 -0400
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net (gateout02.mbox.net [165.212.64.22]) by gwo2.mbox.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BF6F163D7D for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:16:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net [165.212.64.22] by gateout02.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.17K) with ESMTP id 577JHJuq30185Mo2; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:16:53 GMT
Received: from gw1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gateout02.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.21U); Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:16:53 GMT
X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN jhaas@nexthop.com gw1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET
X-USANET-MsgId: XID162JHJuq33078Xo2
Received: from localhost ([65.247.36.31]) by gw1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:16:53 -0600
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:16:52 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20050810201652.GS5530@nexthop.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2005 20:16:53.0579 (UTC) FILETIME=[72E941B0:01C59DE8]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
Subject: MIB question - default BFD enable status?
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
Since I'm now freed from the tyrannies of my company's latest release, I'm in the process of reviewing the various BFD specificiations. One of the questions that came up in during the MIB review was something that input from the WG would be helpful for: bfdAdminStatus OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { enabled(1), disabled(2) } MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The global administrative status of BFD in this router. The value 'enabled' denotes that the BFD Process is active on at least one interface; 'disabled' disables it on all interfaces." DEFVAL { enabled } ::= { bfdScalarObjects 1 } Arguments can be made both ways for this feature to be enabled or disabled by default. I believe that, at least in the MIB, it should be disabled. If you have an opinion, please bring it to the list. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies
- MIB question - default BFD enable status? Jeffrey Haas
- Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status? Pekka Savola
- Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status? Thomas D. Nadeau
- Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status? Pekka Savola
- Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status? Thomas D. Nadeau
- RE: MIB question - default BFD enable status? richard.spencer
- Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status? Jeffrey Haas