The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Last call on MPLS TE MIB
Hello Tom
#-----Original Message-----
#From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
#Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2001 7:33 PM
#To: manis@future.futsoft.com; 'Cucchiara, Joan'
#Cc: slakkapr@nortelnetworks.com; mpls@UU.NET
#Subject: RE: Last call on MPLS TE MIB
#
#
#
# I would just add to that at the end, "The
#syntax and semantics of this value must coincide with
#those defined in the CRLDP specification." I think that
#we need this to ensure inter-operability.
#
# I would also change the SYNTAX to Unsigned32.
#The use of "INTEGER" is appropriate for enumerations.
#Will Unsigned32(0..63) satisfy the definition from
#the CRLDP specification? I think that we want to just
#leave this as Unsigned32 without the range.
Mani> The range was specified since only 6 bits of
the 1 byte Flags can be set. The 2 Most significant Bits
are reserved, set to zero on transmission. (Ignored on
reception).
If range is not specified, in the implementation we
need to take care of the value being set with the
appropriate values.
best regards
mani
#
#
# Traffic Parameters
#
# Each Traffic Parameter is encoded as a 32-bit IEEE single-
# precision floating-point number. A value of positive infinity
# is represented as an IEEE single-precision floating-point
# number with an exponent of all ones (255) and a sign and
# mantissa of all zeros. The values PDR and CDR are in units of
# bytes per second. The values PBS, CBS and EBS are in units of
# bytes.
#
# --Tom
>I have placed the SMI for the object in alignment
>with the other objects in the TE MIB.
>
>If this is fine, or please modify as required and can be
>added to the MIB.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
> mplsTunnelResourceFlags INTEGER
>
> mplsTunnelResourceFlags 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.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>thanks in advance
>with best regards
>mani
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2001 1:21 AM
>To: Cucchiara, Joan; manis@future.futsoft.com
>Cc: slakkapr@nortelnetworks.com
>Subject: RE: Last call on MPLS TE MIB
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Can someone provide us with the appropriate
>SMI for this object?
>
> --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
> >> > -----------------------------------------
> >> >
|
|