[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [OSPF] MIB Dr. Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-12.txt

[snip]
> >
> > Since it's not mandatory, do many MIB authors opt to add a 
> read-only 
> > conformance? In other words, is it common practice?
> >
> 
> Yes, it is common practice.

Then we will follow doctor's advice ;-)

> >
> >>
> >> b)  some of the indexes use InterfaceIndex from the IF-MIB.
> >> The counters
> >> in these tables "might" be related to the  
> ifCounterDiscontinuityTime 
> >> object.
> >> More discussion on these tables would be helpful to 
> determine if this 
> >> is so.
> >
> > The ifCounterDiscontinuityTime does not apply to the counters 
> > associated with OSPFv3 interfaces.
> >
> 
> Okay.  I do have a couple more questions, is there a 
> one-to-one mapping between an OSPFv3 Interface and an IPv6 interface?
> If so, then do the DiscontinuityTimeObjects in RFC4293 apply 
> to OSPFv3 interfaces as well?

There is a one-to-one relationship for non-virtual interfaces, but
the OSPFv3 interface should survive a recycling of the lower layer
interface, that is, recycling of the lower layer interface should
not cause an OSPFv3 interface to clear its SNMP counters.

> 
> More generally, does the IP-MIB in RFC4293 need to be 
> populated prior to this MIB?

In general, there should be a corresponding entry in the
ipv6InterfaceTable
from the IP-MIB for non-virtual OSPFv3 interfaces, but I think
the dependency of the configuration of an OSPFv3 interface upon
the configuration of an IPv6 interface would be implementation specific.

Thanks.
-Dan
> 
> -Joan
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >> In essence, more Discontinuity objects may NOT be 
> beneficial, and so 
> >> would like to discuss a) and b) above before making that 
> >> determination.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>    -Joan
> >>
> > [snip to end]
> > 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf