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

[venkatesan mahalingam <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for questions. Sorry for the delayed response.

Does your implementation provide statistics for connectivity issues in your
UI for BFD over MPLS sessions?

Yes. Our implementation provides statistics for connectivity issues.

>> Let's use these data points to discuss whether the WG will continue to
spend

>> effort on the MIB.

Sure. We are pretty much done the MIB work for BFD over MPLS sessions,
please take this MIB to the next level.

-Venkat.

*From:* Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>
*Date:* November 24, 2014 at 11:47:51 AM PST
*To:* [e-mail]
*Subject:* *BFD statistics for BFD-MPLS sessions (fate of MIB)*

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