The MPLS WG Archive

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

>The design basis of the MIB was based upon network operators needs.
>
>1) What we want
>
>2) What you think we want
>
>There are very subtle differences between those two statements.

         Yes, there is a subtle difference and it is really who "we"
is defined as. To you "we" is defined as the small set of operators
who are currently are using Juniper switches, and of course, those folks
love Kireeti's MIB. It is not however, the model necessarily used
for managing the other LSRs that are out there. There are many others
who use the MPLS-TE-MIB and MPLS-LSR-MIBs for managing their switches/routers.
I have said it once, and I will say it again, if you want to use Juniper's
proprietary MIB to manage your LSRs, then go ahead. If you want to use a
standard MIB to manage the rest of the LSRs in the world, then
use those MIBs which are being defined by the MPLS WG. If the standard
MIB does not suit your needs, then by all means, join in the discussion
of defining it.

> >          3) When does one stop using the so-called minimal one and start
> >                  using the MPLS-TE-MIB? When one wants to inter-operate? If
> >                  you are really concerned with operational functionality,
> >                  then this reason alone would tell you to NOT have 2 MIBs.
>
>So we propose using the kireeti MIB as the basis. The kireeti MIB is based
>in reality of operational need, which is a fine place to start from, I
>assure you.

         What I will assure you of is that the Kireeti-MIB is based on the
reality of the Juniper implementation. This is not the reality of what the
rest of the world uses. Furthermore, it does not necessarily contain the
operational reality of MPLS features that other LSR vendors are currently
deploying due to its incomplete nature.

         --Tom