The MPLS WG Archive

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

         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.


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