[pim] RE: some doubts about draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09 and draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-01

["David McWalter" <DMcW at dataconnection.com>]

Greetings.

 

The PIM WG owns these drafts, so I think these questions belong on the list pim at ietf.org.

 

1.  I don't think it's usual to add router instance information to protocol MIBs.  I'm no VPN expert, so you might like to check this draft for some suggestions.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-vr-mib-04.txt

 

2. Yes, this is inconsistent.  I believe a different E-BSR can be selected per address type as well as per-zone, so not-accessible seems correct.  I think the fix is to add AddressType to the index of pimBsrElectedBSRTable.  Right, Bharat?

 

Regards,

David McWalter.

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: LuanHaiYan [mailto:luanhy79 at 126.com]
Sent: 05 March 2007 13:40
To: ietf-web at ietf.org
Cc: bharat_joshi at infosys.com; David McWalter
Subject: some doubts about draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09 and draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-01

hi,

   I have some doubts abouts draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-01 and`draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09.txt.

I will appreciate it if anybody could anwser it.

  

   1.  For PIM (*,G) State Table/PIM (S,G) State Table/PIM (S,G,RPT) State Table in draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09, instances information is not considered, if routers can support mvpn, maybe  there are same (*,G)/(S,G). how to support them?

 

   2. In Page13 of draft-ietf-pim-bsr-mib-01, BSR Elected-BSR Table is defined as follows:

     `
   -- The BSR Elected-BSR Table
   --

 

   pimBsrElectedBSRTable OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX     SEQUENCE OF PimBsrElectedBSREntry
       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
       STATUS     current
       DESCRIPTION
               "The (conceptual) table containing information about
               elected BSRs.  The table contains one row for each
               zone for which there is an elected BSR."
       ::= { pimBsrObjects 4 }

 

   pimBsrElectedBSREntry OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX     PimBsrElectedBSREntry
       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
       STATUS     current
       DESCRIPTION
               "An entry (conceptual row) in the
                pimBsrElectedBSRTable."
       INDEX      { pimBsrElectedBSRZoneIndex }
       ::= { pimBsrElectedBSRTable 1 }

 

   PimBsrElectedBSREntry ::= SEQUENCE {
       pimBsrElectedBSRZoneIndex        InetZoneIndex,
       pimBsrElectedBSRAddressType      InetAddressType,
       pimBsrElectedBSRAddress          InetAddress,
       pimBsrElectedBSRPriority         Unsigned32,
       pimBsrElectedBSRHashMaskLength   Unsigned32,
       pimBsrElectedBSRExpiryTime       TimeTicks
   }

 

   pimBsrElectedBSRZoneIndex OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX     InetZoneIndex
       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
       STATUS     current
       DESCRIPTION
               "The zone index uniquely identifies the zone on a
               device to which this Elected BSR is attached. There
               is one entry for each zone in ipMcastZoneTable.
               Scope-level information for this zone can be extracted
               from ipMcastZoneTable in IP MCAST MIB."
       ::= { pimBsrElectedBSREntry 1 }

 

   pimBsrElectedBSRAddressType OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX     InetAddressType
       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
       STATUS     current
       DESCRIPTION
               "The address type of the elected BSR."
       ::= { pimBsrElectedBSREntry 2 }

 

 

pimBsrElectedBSRZoneIndex is the index of elected bsr table,

why  is pimBsrElectedBSRAddressType defined as not-accessible?

or maybe should it be read-only?

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim