Re: IP over X.25 MIB comments

[Andy Malis <[e-mail]>]

Dean,

> >- MioxPeerEntry needs another INTEGER entry, mioxPeerIPEncaps.

> The mioxPeerEncTable contains the list of encapsulations that
> are to be used for a given peer.  ... I believe this provides
> the information you need.  If not, please elaborate on the
> shortcomings.

Yup, that's fine.


> >- On the same subject, I don't think I like the DEFVAL of 1 for
> >  mioxPeerMaxCircuits.  I would prefer that a value 0 indicates
> >  no configured limit, and that the DEFVAL be 0.
> >

> How about changing the Description to say a value of 2147483647
> indicates an unlimited number of connections and changing the
> DEFVAL to that value.  I would like to allow 
> zero to indicate no connections.  It might be useful to 
> set all mioxPeerMaxCircuit values to zero to disallow
> all incoming connections just before shutdowning down a system.

Sounds good.


> >- Should the DEFVAL for mioxPeerX25CallParamId be {0 0}?  The
> >  same goes for mioxPeerX25CircuitId.

> I made this change and ran it through Marshall's online mosy
> MIB checker and mosy didn't like it.  Since it received an
> error, I'd like to leave it as 0 and let the SNMP directorate
> review decide on the absolute correct format of a DEFVAL of zero.

Should this be brought up to them as an issue? 


> >- MioxPeerEncEntry needs another PositiveInteger entry,
> >  mioxPeerEncPDUSize.

> How is this different the ifMtu object for the interface?

Yup, you're right, of course.

Andy