The MPLS WG Archive

["Cucchiara, Joan" <JCucchiara@Brixnet.com>]

Tom,

I would like to see Manikantan's suggestions
added to the MPLS-TE MIB.  This is also for
CR-LDP support.  Is this object and description
going to be added?

   Thanks, Joan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manikantan S [mailto:manis@future.futsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:33 PM
> To: 'Cucchiara, Joan'
> Cc: slakkapr@nortelnetworks.com; tnadeau@cisco.com;
> arun@force10networks.com; cheenu@tachion.com; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: RE: Last call on MPLS TE MIB
> 
> 
> Hello Joan
> 
> #> Hello
> #>
> #> It would help, as suggested in the mail to include
> #> the CRLDP-Specific MIB objects in the TE MIB.
> #>
> #> Currently we have them as Enterprise MIB objects
> #> in our implementation and we can move to the
> #> standard MIB if they are available there.
> #>
> #> I have the following question/doubt for Joan.
> #>
> #> 1) We have a field "flags" in the CRLDP Traffic
> #> Parameters TLV. This helps in conveying the
> #> set of negotiable parameters. The value of "Flags"
> #> being added as a configurable object will provide
> #> added flexibility. what do you suggest?
> #
> #I agree with you that an ActiveFlags object would
> #be useful for CR-LDP.  If possible, would you
> #be able to email what this object looked like in
> #your enterprise MIB?
> #
> #Having actual implementation feedback is very useful
> #for MIB objects.
> 
> I currently have the following definition in
> the Enterprises MIB.
> 
>      fsMplsLdpCrlspTnlFlags INTEGER
> 
>      fsMplsLdpCrlspTnlFlags OBJECT-TYPE
>         SYNTAX        INTEGER (0..63)
>         MAX-ACCESS    read-create
>         STATUS        current
>         DESCRIPTION
>             "The value of Flags conveyed as part of the 
> Traffic Parameters
>              during the establishment of the CRLSP. The Bit value
>              indicates the set of Traffic parameters that are
>              negotiable during the CRLSP setup."
>         REFERENCE
>             "Section 4.3, Constraint-Based LSP Setup using 
> LDP, Jamoussi,
> et.
>              al, <draft-ietf-mpls-crldp-04.txt>, July 2000."
>         DEFVAL        { 0 } -- Parameters not negotiable.
> 
> #>
> #> 2) Do we need to use the value of the MIB object
> #> "mplsTunnelIncludeAnyAffinity" for the
> #> "RsCls" field in Resource Class TLV?
> #
> #This seems like a reasonable approach.  Are you
> #suggesting that the wording of the "mplsTunnelIncludeAnyAffinity"
> #object be enhanced to include CR-LDP's Resource Class TLV?
> 
> Yes. I feel it will be clear and very helpful.
> 
> Thanks and best regards
> mani
> -----------------------------------------
> S.Manikantan
> Future Software Limited
> 480-481, Anna Salai,
> Nandanam, Chennai, India.
> Zip (PIN CODE) : 600 035
> Phone          : 91-44-4330550
> Fax            : 91-44-4344157
> email          : manis@future.futsoft.com
> -----------------------------------------
>