![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Hi, AFAIK,
there is an E-BSR elected for each scope zone. Inet Address Type is not
involved here. But
as you rightly pointed out, this object should have read-only permission. Thanks
for pointing this out. I shall fix this in next revision. Thanks & Regards, Bharat From: David McWalter
[mailto: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. 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----- 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: ` pimBsrElectedBSRTable OBJECT-TYPE pimBsrElectedBSREntry OBJECT-TYPE PimBsrElectedBSREntry ::= SEQUENCE { pimBsrElectedBSRZoneIndex OBJECT-TYPE pimBsrElectedBSRAddressType OBJECT-TYPE 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