The MPLS WG Archive

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@Level3.net>]

On July 27 "Cucchiara, Joan" <JCucchiara@Brixnet.com> wrote:
|
|Lastly, is the TE working group going to be developing MIBs and/or PIBs?
|In my opinion this is not clear from the working group's charter.
|
|  Thank you, Joan


It isn't an explicit deliverable in the charter, except that in general the 
TEWG is to "develop ... specify... techniques.. for TE in the Internet"

The interim meeting sort of focused in on
o) why would one do TE
o) what are some of the issues with TE today
o) what measurements are needed to effectively do TE

Mibs fall square in the last one above.  Perhaps a clear re-charter is in 
order on the TE, however.

As for Kireeti's mib, it was mentioned in the interim meeting as a fine 
example of a mib that real operational networks are actually using and that 
it has a good set of operational information needed to monitor and manage 
TE-based networks.  His mib is operationally focused.

The MPLS WG TE mib seems very focused on configuration.  One might also 
argue that it could be cumbersome to implement solely to get the benefits 
of an added perf type table, which by itself can be represented as in 
Kireeti's draft.  So clearly, they currently address different roles, and 
as such, appear to have little overlap.

There was (as usual on Mibs) a bit of apathy in the TE meeting in 
pittsburgh, however it was voiced loudly that standardization of a simple 
straightforward mib is a good thing and Kireeti's draft was likely the most 
appropriate vehicle for this.

So, with that said - I'd like to see what the consensus of the list is.

Should Kireeti's draft
a) be accepted as a TE WG item at this time?
b) not be accepted as a TE WG item at this time?

It'd be nice to limit the distro to <te-wg@uu.net>, unless there is 
objection, to limit sorting through duplicate messages.


thanks,

Jim