Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status?

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 11, 2005, at 12:57 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> First off, is there usefulness in creating a read-write mib in the  
> first place?

     This is a great point, and one which I was hoping to raise (it was
one of Jeff's review comments).  I personally think that r-o is
fine.

> But even if we do, I don't think this global feature is even needed  
> -- isn't it enough to have interface, protocol, or other status  
> values which the operators can then snmpwalk through ?

     I know of at least one implementation that has BFD as a global
configuration.

     --Tom


>
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>