The MPLS WG Archive

["Irfan Lateef" <irfanlateef@hotmail.com>]

Tom,

I may be missing something here but let try to make it
more explicit using a hypothetical example.

Let us extend the example given in the draft
draft-nadeau-mpls-gmpls-te-mib-00.txt section.8 from two hops
to N hops and from loosely routed to explicitly routed and assume
that this has to be done automatically from a management application.

Further assume the application needs to find a list of ERHOPs
satisfying a condition like "find unprotected lambdas with OC-48
worth of bandwidth and setup an LSP  from A to B".


My understanding is, the information gathered by the extensions
specified in draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-01.txt section.5
namely LinkProtectionType,LinkDescriptor (in fact most of the
sub-TLVs of TE-link TLV) may be necessary to do this.

I do not see this data incorporated in any MIB.

Now in the absence of such data, how can the management application
compute the explicit hops satisfying the criteria mentioned above.

If I am totally in the wrong direction would appreciate any pointers
in the right direction.

Thanks for your attention and appreciate your response.

Irfan Lateef




>From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>
>To: "Irfan Lateef" <irfanlateef@hotmail.com>, mpls@UU.NET
>Subject: Re: MIBs for GMPLS
>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 09:15:44 -0400
>
>
>         Hi,
>
>>In order to use the MIB defined by the draft
>>draft-nadeau-mpls-gmpls-te-mib-00.txt a MIB similar
>>to RFC 1850 OSPF-v2 MIB with extensions derived from
>>ideas given in the following drafts
>>draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-01.txt
>>AND/OR
>>draft-kompella-isis-gmpls-extensions-02.txt
>>AND/OR
>>draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-05.txt
>>AND/OR
>>draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-00.txt
>>AND/OR others ....
>>may be required to exchange topology data with the management
>>interface. This data can then be used by the administrator to
>>setup TE-tunnels.
>
>         I don't think that this is necessary for GMPLS-TE
>tunnels to be set up. The aforementioned drafts are
>necessary insofar as to facilitate the exchange
>of that information. That is, that functionality
>must be supported by the devices in the GMPLS
>network.
>
>>I have the following two questions,
>>
>>1. Whether such a MIB is being written/developed?
>
>         Yes, GMPLS-TE-MIB.
>
>         --Tom
>
>
>
>
>>2.  If yes, which draft(s) is being used as a base and
>>    when is it likely to be available.
>>
>>2a. If no,which draft is the most likely candidate to be used
>>    for drafting a MIB like, say, gmpls-ospf-te-mib.txt
>>
>>Appreciate your guidance.
>>
>>If this is not the forum, I would like to find an interest
>>group to discuss this subject.
>>
>>Thanks
>>Irfan Lateef
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com