Re: MIB question - default BFD enable status?
Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Fri, 12 August 2005 04:55 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E3RZv-00014T-UG; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:55:35 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E3RZq-00014O-CO for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:55:33 -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 AAA18572 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:55:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E3S8H-0004Rt-C4 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:31:06 -0400
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j7C4sxp20897; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 07:54:59 +0300
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 07:54:59 +0300
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <31E8370C-8A00-4451-AB12-73B1A696CC58@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508120752470.20788@netcore.fi>
References: <20050810201652.GS5530@nexthop.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508110755350.25486@netcore.fi> <31E8370C-8A00-4451-AB12-73B1A696CC58@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
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 Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote: >> 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. Let's take an analogue. Does the same implementation have a global configuration to enable/disable BGP? BGP and BFD sessions seem like similar beasts, and similar management techniques apply. I can only see (real) usefulness for session-based controls (and "enable BGP/BFD" toggle without session-specific config is quite questionable), but others might have different requirements so this isn't really a big issue to get too excited about. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
- 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