Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status?

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Thu, 11 August 2005 05:01 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E35CX-0003Sh-OH; Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:01:57 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E35CU-0003SS-F1 for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:01:55 -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 BAA24194 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:01:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E35kj-0008V6-KL for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:37:18 -0400
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j7B4vNP25716; Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:57:32 +0300
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:57:23 +0300
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050810201652.GS5530@nexthop.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508110755350.25486@netcore.fi>
References: <20050810201652.GS5530@nexthop.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 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

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?

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 ?

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