Editor's note: These minutes have not been edited. Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 16:29:54 -0400 From: Bob Stewart Minutes of the Entity MIB BOF Stockholm IETF 17 July 1995 Chaired by Keith McCloghrie, Cisco Systems Agenda: Present requirements Discuss requirements Present potential solution Discuss potential solution Discuss future work Keith presented a statement of the problem: - Need for multiple instances of a MIB occuring more often. - Should use multiple SNMPv2 contexts rather than change MIBs. - Context represents MIB in a logical entity. - One agent may support multiple entites or not, difference is not important. - Useful to relate to one or more physical entities Requirements: 1. Find entities in one place. 2. Find relationship between physical and logical. 3. Single and multiple agents. 4. SNMPv1 and SNMPv2. 5. Minimimalist approach: - Read only. - Avoid specific system architectures. - Can't agree - leave it out. Discussion of requirements: - This is not the subagent problem. - For SNMPv1 IP address identifies agent and community string identifies context. - Cost justified by existence of need. - Why read-only? We don't understand configuration well enough. Interface table can't create entries. Adding entities difficult and doesn't reflect reality. Some want to use it to constrain reality. Andy Bierman presented a potential solution, and discussion became interleaved with the presentation: - Internet Draft available as "draft-bierman-entmib-mib-00.txt". - Non-goals to include chassis-specific components or to draw physical pictures. - IP-centric for SNMPv1. For other transport domains, use SNMPv2. - Presented from Draft by examples. - Values for entLogicalType not clear yet. - Standardized physical class to be added (e.g. repeater, router). - Dependent on SNMPv2 definition of a context. - Issues exist regarding relationship of contained, independent agents to consistency of Entity MIB information. - Consider reverse mappings for IfMappingTable and AliasMappingTable. - Why solve problem for Interfaces MIB and not in general? Need suggestions for generic approach. - Add objects for more information if generic enough. - Should "removeable" go further or go away? - What is source of MIB information? Hard code? Operator entered? Too much if latter? Interaction between software modules? - Want interface for adding entries? No. All we want for now is visibility without solving the entire problem. - Why is setting up this working group different from setting up one for subagent technology? This sets a standard for interaction between NMS and agent, not among agents or pieces of agents. - Can we do physical without logical or logical without physical? Either can degenerate to simplest contents. - Main requirement is list of logical entities and way to get to them. MIB does that. Physical part could be removed. - Where is the line for using different contexts and using arbitrary integers for indexing? For example, ifTable could be scalars. We could add repeaterID. The final consensus of the meeting was to request formation of a working group. The Area Director appeared positive.