Re: BFD statistics for BFD-MPLS sessions (fate of MIB)

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

	Also, just to add to this discussion, there is a way to translate SMI/MIBs -> Yang. This is fairly straight-forward, especially for simple statistics. 

	--Tom


> On Nov 24, 2014:2:47 PM, at 2:47 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Working Group,
> 
> One of the topics broached during our status update at IETF-91 was the fate
> of the BFD MPLS MIB.  (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-04)
> 
> MIBs often don't get a lot of attention within IETF and there is often a
> cyclic dependency issue for customer demand based on the publication of an
> RFC, but no demand because there's no RFC.  
> 
> There is also the issue that while BFD for MPLS is obviously a popular
> protocol and supported across multiple vendors, MIBs are being generally
> supplanted by Yang.  However, existing operational infrastructure still
> heavily depends on SNMP polling.
> 
> ------8<---- cut here ---->8------
> 
> I would like to thus turn this into a different question:
> 
> Does your implementation provide statistics for connectivity issues in your
> UI for BFD over MPLS sessions?
> 
> If so, please compare them to the performance counters in the MIB.
> 
> ------8<---- cut here ---->8------
> 
> The MIB obviously covers additional information, but performance counters
> are usually the primary motivator for the MIB.
> 
> Let's use these data points to discuss whether the WG will continue to spend
> effort on the MIB.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
>