Re: [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib
"Kalyan (Srinivas)Tata" <stata@checkpoint.com> Thu, 03 March 2011 00:29 UTC
Return-Path: <stata@checkpoint.com>
X-Original-To: vrrp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vrrp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED3F3A6906 for <vrrp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:29:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, TRACKER_ID=2.003]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id alYtrxfrKccF for <vrrp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:29:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us.checkpoint.com (usmail2.us.checkpoint.com [216.200.240.146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0082C3A67F5 for <vrrp@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:29:02 -0800 (PST)
X-CheckPoint: {4D6EE111-0-8AF0C8D8-FFFF}
Received: from us-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (us-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com [216.200.240.139]) by us.checkpoint.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p230U3Kg017708; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:30:03 -0800
Received: from USEXCHANGE.ad.checkpoint.com ([216.200.240.132]) by US-EX01.ad.checkpoint.com ([216.200.240.139]) with mapi; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:30:41 -0800
From: "Kalyan (Srinivas)Tata" <stata@checkpoint.com>
To: "Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com" <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:30:01 -0800
Thread-Topic: [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib
Thread-Index: Acuva0OcqLfS66ZMQcaBNWv0h/TCQwnwlXvQ
Message-ID: <9FFC3234F1B7F0439C9B8BF94A83F48215326C4534@USEXCHANGE.ad.checkpoint.com>
References: <00a701cbaf6b$6dfdc460$49f94d20$@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <00a701cbaf6b$6dfdc460$49f94d20$@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "vrrp-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <vrrp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "vrrp@ietf.org" <vrrp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib
X-BeenThere: vrrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol <vrrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp>
List-Post: <mailto:vrrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:29:04 -0000
Hi Adrian, Thanks again for the review - I made most of the changes suggested by you - I listed some of the changes for any comments & I have couple of questions/clarifications inline: Thanks Kalyan Creation and deletion of a vrrpv3OperationsTable row [kalyan>>>] This is what i have based on your suggestions. Please comment if this looks OK vrrpv3OperationsEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Vrrpv3OperationsEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An entry in the vrrpv3OperationsTable containing the operational characteristics of a virtual router. On a VRRP router, a given virtual router is identified by a combination of ifIndex, VRID and the IP version. ifIndex represents a interface of the router. A row must be created with vrrpv3OperationsStatus set to initialize(1) and cannot transition to backup(2) or master(3) until vrrpv3OperationsRowStatus is transitioned to active(1). The information in this table is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non- volatile storage." INDEX { ifIndex, vrrpv3OperationsVrId, vrrpv3OperationsInetAddrType } ::= { vrrpv3OperationsTable 1 } ======================================= vrrpv3OperationsRowStatus OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX RowStatus MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The RowStatus variable should be used in accordance to installation and removal conventions for conceptual rows. To create a row in this table, a manager sets this object to either createAndGo(4) or createAndWait(5). Until instances of all corresponding columns are appropriately configured, the value of the Corresponding instance of the `vrrpv3OperationsRowStatus' column will be read as notReady(3). In particular, a newly created row cannot be made active(1) until (minimally) the corresponding instance of vrrpv3OperationsInetAddrType, vrrpv3OperationsVrId and vrrpv3OperationsPrimaryIpAddr has been set and there is at least one active row in the `vrrpv3AssociatedIpAddrTable' defining an associated IP address. notInService(2) should be used to administratively bring the row down. A typical order of operation to add a row is: 1. Create a row in vrrpv3OperationsTable with createAndWait(5). 2. Create one or more corresponding rows in vrrpv3AssociatedIpAddrTable. 3. Populate the vrrpv3OperationsEntry. 4. set vrrpv3OperationsRowStatus to active(1). A typical order of operation to delete an entry is: 1. Set vrrpv3OperationsRowStatus to notInService(2). 2. Set the corresponding rows in vrrpv3AssociatedIpAddrTable to destroy(6) to delete the entry. 3. set vrrpv3OperationsRowStatus to destroy(6) to delete the entry." ::= { vrrpv3OperationsEntry 13 } --- vrrpv3AssociatedIpAddr You should add a statement the description that says that the content of the object is to be interpreted in the context of the setting of vrrpv3OperationsInetAddrType in the index of this row. [kalyan>>>] Following is what i added : vrrpv3AssociatedIpAddrAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddress (SIZE (0|4|16)) MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The assigned IP addresses that a virtual router is responsible for backing up. The IP address type is determined by the value of vrrpv3OperationsInetAddrType in the index of this row" REFERENCE " RFC 5798 " ::= { vrrpv3AssociatedIpAddrEntry 1 } --- VRRP Router Statistics Do you need a discontinuity timer for the three global objects: - vrrpv3RouterChecksumErrors - vrrpv3RouterVersionErrors - vrrpv3RouterVrIdErrors [kalyan>>>] I added the following : vrrpv3GlobalStatisticsDiscontinuityTime OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TimeStamp MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The value of sysUpTime on the most recent occasion at which one of vrrpv3RouterChecksumErrors, vrrpv3RouterVersionErrors and vrrpv3RouterVrIdErrors suffered a discontinuity. If no such discontinuities have occurred since the last re-initialization of the local management subsystem, then this object contains a zero value." ::= { vrrpv3Statistics 4 } --- VRRP Router Statistics In the presence of an attack or a broken router or host nearby, is it possible that Countr32 will not be large enough for the up-time of this router? You can choose to use Counter64 or describe wrapping conditions. [kalyan>>>] Changed all the statistics counters to Counter64 except for vrrpv3StatisticsMasterTransitions --- --- vrrpv3StatisticsAdvIntervalErrors "The total number of VRRP advertisement packets received for which the advertisement interval is different than the one configured for the local virtual router. Can you add a reference to vrrpv3OperationsAdvInterval [kalyan>>>] Following is the new text i have : The total number of VRRP advertisement packets received for which the advertisement interval is different from the vrrpv3OperationsAdvInterval configured on this virtual router. --- vrrpv3ProtoError Don't you think this is a *really* dangerous notification? If a VR is under attack or receiving packets from a faulty speaker, it will spew notifications. You should probably either add some thresholding objects (which is a fair bit of work) or a single object to turn notifications on and off (with the default being "off"). [kalyan>>>] I agree. I had a notification control object in earlier drafts but was asked to be removed during MIB DR. review. Following is the cut and paste of the comments: > >> * vrrpTrapNewMasterCntl, vrrpTrapProtoErrorCntl >> >> Could notifications be generated or not, using >> RFC3413? >> > [Kalyan>] Notifications could be filtered/generated using RFC3413. I added > these to conveniently control notifications within this MIB (Based on > request from some one on the mailing list) You suggest we get rid of these? > Yes, I think that most operators would likely use rfc3413. Having this in 2 places may create some confusion... --- Notifications As currently specified, both of the notifications will come from the management agent which will identify the physical router that sourced the notification, but not the VR. Don't you need to add some index values to the notifications as well? [kalyan>>>] Good point. Added the Following to uniquely identify row in vrrpv3OperationsTable: vrrpv3NewMaster NOTIFICATION-TYPE OBJECTS { ifIndex, vrrpv3OperationsVrId, vrrpv3OperationsInetAddrType, vrrpv3OperationsMasterIpAddr, vrrpv3StatisticsNewMasterReason } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The newMaster notification indicates that the sending agent has transitioned to 'Master' state." ::= { vrrpv3Notifications 1 } vrrpv3ProtoError NOTIFICATION-TYPE OBJECTS { ifIndex, vrrpv3OperationsVrId, vrrpv3OperationsInetAddrType, vrrpv3StatisticsProtoErrReason } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The notification indicates that the sending agent has encountered the protocol error indicated by vrrpv3StatisticsProtoErrReason." ::= { vrrpv3Notifications 2 } --- Section 11 Since you are obsoleting RFC 2787, is it your intention to ask IANA to deprecate {mib-2 68} ? [kalyan>>>] Yes. I added the following to IANA considerations : [Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): The IANA is requested to assign a value for "ZZZ" under the 'mib-2' subtree and to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry. When the assignment has been made, the RFC Editor is asked to replace "ZZZ" (here and in the MIB module) with the assigned value. This document obsoletes RFC 2787 and the IANA is requested to deprecate the value 68 under 'mib-2' assigned to VRRP-MIB.] --- Would you please consider adding a short section on migrating from VRRP-MIB to VRRPV3-MIB? [kalyan>>>] I am not sure there is a smooth migration path from VRRP-MIB to VRRPV3-MIB - I think we made a conscious decision that VRRV3 MIB will only support RFC5798 and will not support earlier versions. The way i see it - Routers that implement RFC2338 and VRRP-MIB will have to first migrate to RFC5798 and then make changes to VRRP-MIB implementation to conform to VRRPv3-MIB. Should i mention this fact in the section? Thanks Kalyan _______________________________________________ vrrp mailing list vrrp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
- [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib Adrian Farrel
- Re: [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-m… Kalyan (Srinivas)Tata
- Re: [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-m… Mukesh Gupta
- Re: [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-m… Rio Asnara
- Re: [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-m… Mukesh Gupta
- Re: [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-m… Rio Asnara
- Re: [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-m… Kalyan (Srinivas)Tata
- Re: [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-m… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-m… Kalyan (Srinivas)Tata