The MPLS WG Archive

["Manikantan S" <manis@future.futsoft.com>]

Hello Thomas, Joan

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