Re: [Tsvwg] TCP and UDP MIB issues

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

Generally, the proposed UDP-Lite MIB follows that for UDP (supporting 
both multicast and unicast). It does differ in the udpliteEndpointTable:

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tsvwg/draft-renker-tsvwg-udplite-mib-01.txt

If there are implications on the UDP-Lite MIB, we'd be pleased to try to 
understand what these are, and any ideas of what we should do.

Best wishes,

Gorry

Anders Persson wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
> 
> During the v6ops meeting at IETF 66 we presented some issues with the 
> current TCP and UDP MIBs, however, it was quickly pointed out that the 
> TSVWG would be a more appropriate venue. The main issue that we are 
> trying to address is how to present associations between system 
> processes and TCP/UDP endpoints when there are multiple processes 
> associated with one endpoint.
> 
> A draft[1] is available that describes the issue and which also contains 
> a first attempt at a TCP/UDP extension MIB. It would be highly 
> appreciated if members of the TSVWG could help out reviewing this draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> Anders
> 
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/draft-persson-v6ops-mib-issue-01.txt
> 
> 
>