Re: [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib
Adrian Farrel <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com> Wed, 06 April 2011 09:59 UTC
Return-Path: <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.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 97EC728C105 for <vrrp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 02:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.714, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 TMxev5upU+jQ for <vrrp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 02:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usaga03-in.huawei.com (usaga03-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.220]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DDD43A68E6 for <vrrp@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 02:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (usaga03-in [172.18.4.17]) by usaga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LJ80084K6HBL8@usaga03-in.huawei.com> for vrrp@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 05:00:48 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from 950129200 (28.Red-213-96-54.staticIP.rima-tde.net [213.96.54.28]) by usaga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LJ800DYD6H85X@usaga03-in.huawei.com> for vrrp@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 05:00:47 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:00:46 +0200
From: Adrian Farrel <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <9FFC3234F1B7F0439C9B8BF94A83F48215326C4534@USEXCHANGE.ad.checkpoint.com>
To: "'Kalyan (Srinivas)Tata'" <stata@checkpoint.com>, draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib@tools.ietf.org
Message-id: <02d901cbf441$81427960$83c76c20$@huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-language: en-gb
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: AQJpH+xhvhccnkER8FVizp8VUMATpQHheBPtkwcshlA=
References: <00a701cbaf6b$6dfdc460$49f94d20$@huawei.com> <9FFC3234F1B7F0439C9B8BF94A83F48215326C4534@USEXCHANGE.ad.checkpoint.com>
Cc: vrrp-chairs@tools.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
Reply-To: Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com
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: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 09:59:05 -0000
Hi, Sorry for the delay around the IETF meeting. All agreed with a small suggestion around RFC 3413 > 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: > >> 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 } Looks good. >> 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 } OK >> 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 } Fine >> 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 Great >> 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. Perfect >> 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... OK, we can go with 3413 if that is what you are happy with. But I think you need a reference to 3413. - Add it to the normative references - Add it to some text early in the draft. There is not a lot of option. I suggest a new paragraph in the into saying: Notifications in this MIB module are controlled using the mechanisms defined in [RFC3413]. - Add a comment within the MIB module as: OLD -- Notification Definitions NEW -- Notification Definitions -- Notifications may be controlled using SNMP-NOTIFICATION-MIB END >> 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 } OK >> 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.] OK >> 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? No need. Your explanation here is clear. Looking forward to seeing the revision. Cheers, Adrian
- [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