Subject: Comments on mib-update-07

From: Don Goodspeed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:00:02 -0500

All,

Did a full re-review of the MIB and here are my comments:
1. For ospfNbrOptions, should we update the DESCRIPTION clause with
the current available options?
2. For ospfAsLsdbAdvertisement, the SYNTAX clause is incorrect.
Instead of SIZE(36), it needs to be SIZE(1..65535).
3. For ospfConfigErrorType, instead of moving noError every time
we add a new enum, just make noError to be zero.
4. Also for ospfConfigErrorType, in the DESCRIPTION, ospfConfig-
Error and ospfConfigVirtError need to have "If" in each.
5. Should we add additional error codes for:
 a. badLsType -- something other than 1 thru 5
 b. subnetMismatch -- for bcast links, or do we want to overload
    netMaskMismatch?
 c. xsumError -- when the packet contents do not match the OSPF
    checksum, also when LSA content does not match LSA checksum
 d. badLengths -- when the advertised length of the OSPF packet
    does not match the actual length of the received packet
6. If 5a is adopted, then ospfPacketType needs an additional enum
   for other(7) or unknown(7).
7. For the NbrStateChange traps, should we add an additional
varbind for the event that caused the state change?  This aids
when debugging a resetting adjacency to know that an sequence #
mismatch or a change in the options caused the adjacency to reset.

Thanks,
Don

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:13:16 -0500

Hi Don,

See comments comments below.

> a. badLsType -- something other than 1 thru 5
This would indicate a type other than the types supported by the
receiving router. Current
OSPFv2 types include 1-7 and 9-11.

>    checksum, also when LSA content does not match LSA checksum
I wouldn't classify this as a configuration error.

>    does not match the actual length of the received packet
We don't want to check this since there is a potential extension that
requires that this
isn't checked.

>   for other(7) or unknown(7).
But 5 a) refers to LS types - not packet types.