Re: Comments on X.25 MIB, 12 June, 1992

Ragnar Paulson <ragnar@software.group.com> Fri, 26 June 1992 16:50 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06277; 26 Jun 92 12:50 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06273; 26 Jun 92 12:50 EDT
Received: from dg-rtp.rtp.dg.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18441; 26 Jun 92 12:51 EDT
Received: from uunet.ca by dg-rtp.dg.com (5.4.1/dg-rtp-proto) id AA27791; Fri, 26 Jun 1992 12:06:51 -0400
Received: from tsgfred by mail.uunet.ca with UUCP id <9792>; Fri, 26 Jun 1992 12:06:38 -0400
Received: from rosie.group.com by tsgfred.software.group.com id aa00530; Fri, 26 Jun 92 9:37:04 EDT
Subject: Re: Comments on X.25 MIB, 12 June, 1992
To: x25mib@dg-rtp.dg.com
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 09:41:57 -0400
Reply-To: ragnar@software.group.com
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL13]
From: Ragnar Paulson <ragnar@software.group.com>
Message-Id: <9206260941.aa17685@rosie.software.group.com>

> >
> >Comment  : #4
> >Location : Page 16, x25AdmnMaxActiveCircuits OBJECT-TYPE
> >Type	 : Major technical
> >Rationale: The maximum number of active circuits is limited to 4095: Logical
> >	   Channel 0 is used for network signalling.
> >Proposal : Change SYNTAX INTEGER TO (0..4095).
> 
> I have heard that some networks actually use Logical Channel 0 as 
> a data channel and they could indeed have 4096 channels.  While the 
> MIB doesn't go out of its way to support these implementations, it 
> doesn't hurt much to define the object to allow 4096 even though 
> most implementations only allow a maximum of 4095.  
> 

This is correct, most notably  TransPac in France allows/requires
that channel zero be available as a virtual circuit,  a major pain
in the neck for implementors.

...
> 
> >
> >Comment	 : #12 (as for #10)
> >Location : Page 42, x25CircuitChannel OBJECT-TYPE
> 
> I agree the range should be 1..4095.
> >
> >Comment	 : #13 (as for #10)
> >Location : Page 52, x25ClearedCircuitChannel OBJECT-TYPE
> 
> I agree the range should be 1..4095.
> 

In keeping with comment #4, shouldn't this be a range of 0-4095.

> 
> I'd like to hear from other members of the working group.
> Should we change the MIB at start another review period,
> or just change the MIB and send it to the SNMP area director?
> 

I vote for option two (just change the mib),  I don't see anything
of signifigance to discuss here.

> Dean Throop		throop@dg-rtp.dg.com
> 


-- 
Ragnar Paulson				email:  ...uunet!tsgfred!ragnar	
The Software Group Limited		or:	ragnar@software.group.com
Phone: 416 856 0238