Subject: BFD MIB

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:19:59 -0800

Hi,

This is regarding the BFD MIB version 07. I noticed that the sessions
table has the objects bfdSessDesiredMinTxInterval and other session
related parameters.

The issue with this is that because the sessions in BFD are actually
triggered by protocols outside BFD and in BFD we are unaware of which
sessions will be created, changing the values of the objects when the
row create is triggered dynamically from other protocols is not
possible.

The way to solve the issue is to use some entity tables/ structures
just like we have it in LDP. So we could have entities for each
interface as well as each multihop session. We could seperatly create
the entity structures and any session belonging to an entity would
inherit the property configured for the entity.

Looking at the Cisco CLI it seems to take the parameters on the
interface basis too. Why is the MIB not aligned to the CLI (even
though the authors themselves are from the company)?

Can the authors please comment on it?

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Nitin Bahadur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:22:54 -0800

> Can the authors please comment on it?

Please take this discussion offline. This is not appropriate for the list.

Thanks
Nitin

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:31:16 -0800

Hi Nitin,

Thanks for the comment.

My point is the difference in the MIB and the way to realize the
functionality. As an example I have taken the Cisco CLI. I am sure you
are not against a discussion on the MIB.

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:44:31 -0800

Hi Nitin,

I was eager to know your view about how to configure parameters in
sessions through SNMP and if you agreed having an Entity based LDP
like approach may be better.

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: David Ward <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:53:44 -0600

Leaving aside the questions specific to a vendor, the MIB is out of  
date after the changes to the specs following IESG review/comments and  
needs another revision.

-DWard

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:45:34 -0800

Hi David,

Thanks. I think some of the comments on the list earlier have also not
been incorporated either. As the MIB has expired I am not sure if the
authors need help closing the MIB. Do let me know if you need help
closing the document?

Thanks again,
Vishwas

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM, David Ward <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Leaving aside the questions specific to a vendor, the MIB is out of date
> after the changes to the specs following IESG review/comments and needs
> another revision.
>
> -DWard
>
>
>

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:06:41 -0500

Thanks for the offer, but we have updated the document but missed the update deadline. 

	--Tom

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:29:37 -0800

Hi Tom,

Thats great.

Do you have any comments on the questions I have raised? What about
the other comments discussed on the list, have they been looked into?

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:26:08 +0200 (EET)

> missed the update deadline.

I bet you'll be glad to hear that the floodgates are already open! :-)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings