Subject: Fwd: BFD statistics for BFD-MPLS sessions (fate of MIB)

From: venkatesan mahalingam <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 16:34:29 -0800

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for questions. Sorry for the delayed response.

Does your implementation provide statistics for connectivity issues in your
UI for BFD over MPLS sessions?

Yes. Our implementation provides statistics for connectivity issues.

>> Let's use these data points to discuss whether the WG will continue to
spend

>> effort on the MIB.

Sure. We are pretty much done the MIB work for BFD over MPLS sessions,
please take this MIB to the next level.

-Venkat.

*From:* Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
*Date:* November 24, 2014 at 11:47:51 AM PST
*To:* [email-masked]
*Subject:* *BFD statistics for BFD-MPLS sessions (fate of MIB)*

Working Group,

One of the topics broached during our status update at IETF-91 was the fate
of the BFD MPLS MIB.  (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-04)

MIBs often don't get a lot of attention within IETF and there is often a
cyclic dependency issue for customer demand based on the publication of an
RFC, but no demand because there's no RFC.

There is also the issue that while BFD for MPLS is obviously a popular
protocol and supported across multiple vendors, MIBs are being generally
supplanted by Yang.  However, existing operational infrastructure still
heavily depends on SNMP polling.

------8<---- cut here ---->8------

I would like to thus turn this into a different question:

Does your implementation provide statistics for connectivity issues in your
UI for BFD over MPLS sessions?

If so, please compare them to the performance counters in the MIB.

------8<---- cut here ---->8------

The MIB obviously covers additional information, but performance counters
are usually the primary motivator for the MIB.

Let's use these data points to discuss whether the WG will continue to spend
effort on the MIB.

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:06:55 -0500

> please take this MIB to the next level.

Venkat, if you're saying you have implemented the MIB as-is, then that at
least provides existence proof that it is structured well enough for
implementation.  That's one of the major hurdles for shipping a MIB
document.

The biggest hurdles are clearing MIB doctor review. :-)

Given that there's an implementation, let's keep the WG document and we'll
target trying to get review cycles in by February.

Meanwhile, if you have any edits to the document, please post them to the
working group.

-- Jeff