Subject: LDP MIB update?

From: "Kullberg, Alan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:12:45 -0500

When is the next revision of the LDP MIB draft expected to be released?

Thanks,

Alan

---

From: Joan Cucchiara <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:44:00 -0500

Alan,

Should be by the end of this month.

-Joan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kullberg, Alan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 5:13 PM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: LDP MIB update?
> 
>

---

From: Piers Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:24:21 -0000

Joan,

I think there may be a problem with the mplsLdpSessionPeerAddressTable in
the LDP MIB.

The mplsLdpSessionPeerAddressTable extends the mplsLdpSessionTable in the
same way as the mplsLdpFrameRelaySessionTable and the
mplsLdpAtmSessionTable.  They all use the same indexes as the
mplsLdpSessionTable, but the Protocol Session Table indexes are extended to
include

mplsLdpSessionAtmLabelRangeLowerBoundVpi and
mplsLdpSessionAtmLabelRangeLowerBoundVpi in the ATM case

mplsLdpFrSessionMinDlci in the Frame Relay case.

These additional indexes allow multiple rows to exist in the Protocol
Session Tables for a single entry in the mplsLdpSessionTable.  this is
important because there may be several label ranges for a single session.

I think there may also be multiple peer next hop addresses per session.
This means that the two fields

mplsLdpSessionPeerNextHopAddressType
mplsLdpSessionPeerNextHopAddress

should be added to the index so that rows in this table can also be
accessed.

If you make this change, the ASN.1 for mplsLdpSessionPeerAddressEntry will
become

...

mplsLdpSessionPeerAddressEntry OBJECT-TYPE
         SYNTAX      MplsLdpSessionPeerAddressEntry
         MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
         STATUS      current
         DESCRIPTION
             "An entry in this table represents information on
             session's for a single next hop address which was
             advertised in an Address Message from the LDP peer.
             The information contained in a row is read-only."
         INDEX       { mplsLdpEntityLdpId,
                       mplsLdpEntityIndex,
                       mplsLdpPeerLdpId,
                       mplsLdpPeerIndex,
                       mplsLdpSessionIndex
                       mplsLdpSessionPeerNextHopAddressType
                       mplsLdpSessionPeerNextHopAddress
                     }
         ::= { mplsLdpSessionPeerAddressTable 1 }

     MplsLdpSessionPeerAddressEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
         mplsLdpSessionPeerNextHopAddressType     AddressFamilyNumbers,
         mplsLdpSessionPeerNextHopAddress         MplsLdpGenAddr
     }

The individual fields also have to become "not-accessible"

...

However, in your email of 3 December 1999 you describe new indexing for the
mplsLdpSessionTable.  I assume, therefore that
mplsLdpSessionPeerAddressEntry becomes

...

mplsLdpSessionPeerAddressEntry OBJECT-TYPE
         SYNTAX      MplsLdpSessionPeerAddressEntry
         MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
         STATUS      current
         DESCRIPTION
             "An entry in this table represents information on
             session's for a single next hop address which was
             advertised in an Address Message from the LDP peer.
             The information contained in a row is read-only."
         INDEX       { mplsLdpEntityLdpId,
                       mplsLdpEntityIndex,
                       mplsLdpPeerLdpId,
                       mplsLdpSessionPeerNextHopAddressType,
                       mplsLdpSessionPeerNextHopAddress
                     }
         ::= { mplsLdpSessionPeerAddressTable 1 }

     MplsLdpSessionPeerAddressEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
         mplsLdpSessionPeerNextHopAddressType     AddressFamilyNumbers,
         mplsLdpSessionPeerNextHopAddress         MplsLdpGenAddr
     }

...

Is this correct?

Thanks,
Piers

---------------------------------------------------------
Piers Finlayson

ATM, MPLS and Telecoms Group
Data Connection Ltd.

Tel:   +44 20 8366 1177     Fax: +44 20 8363 4478
Email: [email-masked]     Web: http://www.datcon.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Joan Cucchiara <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:33:55 -0500

Piers,

I do think you are correct and
those NextHop objects should be included in the index.
And yes, we have removed the SessionIndex 
from the MIB, so your table appears to be correct.

   Thanks, Joan

> From: Piers Finlayson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 10:24 AM
> To: 'Joan Cucchiara'
> Cc: [email-masked]'
> Subject: RE: LDP MIB update?
> 
> 
> Joan,
> 
> AddressFamilyNumbers,
> AddressFamilyNumbers,