Current Meeting Report
2.3.4 Bridge MIB (bridge)
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 52nd IETF Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah USA. It
may now be out-of-date. Last Modified:
Les Bell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Operations and Management Area Director(s):
Randy Bush <email@example.com>
Bert Wijnen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Operations and Management Area Advisor:
Bert Wijnen <email@example.com>
To Subscribe: firstname.lastname@example.org
In Body: subscribe your_email_address
Description of Working Group:
The Bridge MIB Working Group is chartered to define a set of managed
objects that instrument devices that conform to the IEEE 802.1
standards for MAC-layer bridges.
This set of objects should be largely compliant with (and even draw
from) those objects defined within each of the IEEE 802.1 standards,
although there is no requirement that any specific object be present or
The set of objects should not duplicate, nor conflict with any MIB
object definitions defined by the IEEE 802.1 standards themselves.
The MIB object definitions produced will be for use by SNMP and will be
consistent with other SNMP objects, standards, and conventions.
Goals and Milestones:
|Done||  || Publish initial proposal.|
|Done||  || Submit an Internet-Draft.|
|Done||  || Submit draft for RFC publication.|
|Done||  || Publish a draft revision to RFC 1286 that reflects implementation experience and the result of alignments with IEEE work as an Internet-Draft.|
|Done||  || Publish a draft SNMP MIB that instruments functions specific to source routed bridges as an Internet-Draft.|
|Done||  || Submit a draft MIB for source routing bridge functions to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.|
|Done||  || Submit a new MIB document with support for recently developed 802.1 specifications to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.|
|Jul 01||  || Submit new I-D for RFC 1493 in SMIv2 form|
|Jul 01||  || Submit new I-D for RFC 1525 in SMIv2 format|
|Aug 01||  || Evaluate status of RFC 1493 and the SMIv2 versio and get WG consensus if it should be recycled a Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard|
|Aug 01||  || Evaluate status of RFC 1525 and the SMIv2 versio and get WG consensus if it should be recycled a Draft or can be elevated to Full Standard|
|Aug 01||  || Evaluate status of RFC 2674 an get WG consensus if it should be recycled at Proposed or can be elevated to Draft Standard|
|Aug 01||  || Submit an Internet-Draft (or drafts) with MI support for extensions to the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w|
|Sep 01||  || Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1493 to IESG fo consideration as Full Standard.|
|Sep 01||  || Submit SMIv2 version of RFC 1525 to IESG fo consideration as Full Standard.|
|Sep 01||  || Submit RFC 2674 (or new I-D if clarifications had to be made) to IESG for consideration as Draft Standard|
|Dec 01||  || Revise the Internet-Draft(s) with MIB support for extensions to the Bridge standards defined in 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w.|
|Mar 02||  || Submit completed draft(s) with MIB support for extensions to 802.1w to the IESG, for consideration as a Proposed Standard.|
Request For Comments:
|RFC1493||DS||Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges
|RFC1525||PS||Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing
|RFC2674||PS||Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic
Classes, Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions
Current Meeting Report
Salt Lake City, UT
BridgeMIB WG minutes
KC Norseth volunteered to take the minutes, Les Bell took minutes while KC was presenting.
A call was made for Implementation Reports from all vendors.
Email the reports to the mailing list, the chair (Les Bell), or the Area Director (Bert Wijnen).
SMIv2 Bridge MIB
This has missed the original September 2001 milestone.
Some objects have changed from
read-only (dot1dTpFdbAddress, dot1dBasePort) or
read-create (dot1dStaticAddress, dot1dstaticReceivePort)
to not-accessible, as they are index objects. This is likely to break current implementations and applications, therefore, they will be restored to their original access permissions. This is permitted according to RFC 2578, section 7.7.
dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo needs to be bounded. The required size is 512 octets, to support up to 4096 ports. This exceeds minimum required SNMP packet size, therefore, this needs to be noted in the DESCRIPTION of this object. See RFC 2578 section 7.1 for details on size limitations.
The use of dot1dStpEnable is reportedly inconsistently implemented. Therefore this requires clarification. Some vendors use this to disable STP on a port. The consensus was to wait until after InterWorking Labs Test Summit in January 2002, to see if more feedbackresults from this.
SMIv2 Source Routing MIB
No issues were raised. It is acceptable to recycle this as a Proposed Standard in this case, although it was suggested that Informational or Historic may be appropriate document states. It was decided that it would be best for the Area Director to decide on the appropriate document status.
RSTP-MIB, U-BRIDGE-MIB, V-BRIDGE-MIB
The consensus at the meeting was that U-BRIDGE-MIB and V-BRIDGE-MIB should be added to an update of RFC 2674. The U-BRIDGE-MIB objects should be incorporated into the existing Q-BRIDGE-MIB. V-BRIDGE-MIB should be a separate MIB module inthis document. No objections to this proposal have been received on the mailing list since it was proposed after the London IETF in August. Vivian Ngai volunteered to become the editor for this revision of RFC 2674. This will mean that the revised document will have to be re-cycled at Proposed status.
A number of items have been highlighted as being deliberately omitted from RFC 2674, it was the consensus of the room to leave these out of the revised MIBs. This includes the GMRP and GVRP Notifications that were added after the London IETF, so these will be removed again.
The required SYNTAX changes to dot1dPortPathCost mean that this object should be deprecated and a new object created to replace it.
The suggestion raised on the mailing list, to include counters for Config, TCN and RSTP BPDUs received on each port, Port Role and Legacy Neighbour information was agreed by those in the room. These should be added to the next revision of the document.
IEEE 802.1X MIB
The IEEE 802.1 WG approved publication of this MIB as an Informational RFC. Permission has been requested from the IEEE to do this. This is just waiting for the copyright release from IEEE.
KC Norseth has prepared an Internet-Draft for publication of this MIB.
This will be submitted to IETF when permission is granted by IEEE.
Dan Romascanu volunteered to bring up any issues that people have with the 802.1X MIB at the next IEEE 802.1 meeting in Raleigh, NC, January 14-18 - meeting details can be found at http://www.ieee802.org/3/interims/index.html
You can raise these issues on the email@example.com mailing list.
IEEE 802.1s MIB
The consensus in the room was that this is not yet stable enough for a MIB to be developed. This should not be added to the WG Charter at this time.
Goals & Milestones
RFC 1525 Source Routing MIB update
- to be submitted to IESG by February 2002.
RFC 1493 Bridge MIB update
- to be submitted to IESG after the March 2002 meeting.
RFC 2674 Bridge MIB Extensions update
- to be submitted to IESG after the July 2002 meeting.
Any Other Business
InterWorking Labs are holding a Bridge MIB and Ethernet Interfaces MIB Test Summit January 28-30, 2002. They are looking for input on test scenarios and participants for this event. Feedback from this event may be useful for the Implementation Reports required for advancing these standards.
Slides are available for the presentations from
K.C. Norseth (Bridge MIB, 802.1X MIB) &
Vivian Ngai (RSTP-MIB, U-BRIDGE-MIB, V-BRIDGE-MIB)
Definitions for Port Access Control (IEEE 802.1X) MIB
Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges
Definition of Managed Objects for Bridges with RSTP and VLAN