The MPLS WG Archive

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

         Yes, sorry we overlooked it during our most
recent editing session. The object looks fine.
Lets just blame Arun for that one. ;)

         --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
> > -----------------------------------------
> >