Re: draft-atlas-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-00.txt

At 01:38 PM 11/11/2004, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>A few nits, probably worth getting them out early.
>
>1. Please say "MIB module" not "MIB"

Will do.

>2. As suggested at the mic, do consider SNMP Notifications, but also 
>consider the amount
>of information overload that might arise on recovery from a single network 
>fault. Probably
>much more interesting to keep statistics and history about actions and errors.

I think these belong in the IGP-specific MIBs, so that they can be related 
to the particular area that was affected.

Of interest might be:
         a) Event count: hold-down for link-protecting alternates was 
terminated because a node failed.
         b) Event count: hold-down for node-protecting alternates was 
terminated because an unrelated link failed.
         c) Event count: single link failure triggered SPF
         d) Event count: single node failure triggered SPF
         e) Event count: local link failure triggered SPF
etc.

>3. Please split references into normative and informational.
>I suspect draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-07 is needed as a normative reference

Sure

>4. I agree that write access will be needed for some objects.

Do you think we need write access into both the ipFrrAltTable and the 
ipFrrNoAltTable?  I primarily see this as being useful for static routes.

Thanks,
Alia

_______________________________________________
Rtgwg mailing list
Rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg