The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Two TE MIBs
Of course some of the vendors may be implementing a MIB that combines the best parts of both of these. Bora Who thinks having one MIB would have been easier. On Sunday, March 25, 2001, at 12:18 PM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > Inline > >> ---------- >> From: Thomas D. Nadeau[SMTP:tnadeau@cisco.com] >> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 3:07 PM >> To: Rao Vadlamani; mpls@UU.NET; te-wg@UU.NET >> Cc: cheenu Srinivasan; Arun Viswanathan >> Subject: Re: Two TE MIBs >> >> >> Hi, >> >>> Could someone clarify as to why there are 2 draft TE MIB's >>> draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib-06.txt of Thomas D. Nadeu etal and >>> draft-ietf-tewg-mib-00.txt of Kireeti ? If I understand, both are >>> going >>> for a IESG approval, too. If my understanding is correct both the MIBs >>> are giving more or less the same information. except in the second MIB >>> of kireeti, all the objects are only read-only and operator can't > My understanding is that Kireeti was going to change MAX-ACCESS to > read-create or read-write >>> exercise control over them ? What's the motivation behind this ? >>> Thanks in advance for the clarification and I am sorry to pose this >>> question if this is already raised and discussed. >> >> Beats me why there are two, but I am not going to beat >> a dead horse and argue about it any longer though. This was discussed >> at length late last summer, and I suggest you go back and re-read >> the archive so that you can come to your own informed conclusion. >> The outcome of the discussion at that time was that IESG agreed to >> have two. >> > But we prefer to have no (or as few as possible) overlaps. > Maybe we need to check how this can be achieved. > > My understanding at the time of a quick briefing was that they do > different > things. Specifically the MIB(s) developed in MPLS WG have lots of stuff > to be able to "debug" MPLS. Also... the message I got was that the MIB > from MPLS WG was to be run at each node, while the TE-WG MIB > does not need to run at each node. > > I will look into these MIBs in more detail over the next weeks. > > Bert > >> --Tom >> >> >> >
|
|