The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Jun> msg00081



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

prequeal to WG lat call om the LSR mib module[mplsInSegmentTable]

  • From: "Shevenell, Michael (Mike)" <mshev@aprisma.com>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:11:02 -0400

As a provider of management solutions... We'd "prefer"
to have a simple solution but we MUST have a working
solution. Although the proposed change makes the
instancing a bit more complex, the getnext performance 
of the current mplsXCTable is so slow that its practically
unreadable in any reasonably sized network.

	Mike Shevenell
	Aprisma Management Technologies

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:35 AM
To: 'Choudhury, Sanjaya'; mpls@UU.NET
Subject: RE: prequeal to WG lat call om the LSR mib
module[mplsInSegmentTable]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET] On Behalf 
> Of Choudhury, Sanjaya
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 12:06 PM
> To: 'mpls@UU.NET'
> Subject: RE: prequeal to WG lat call om the LSR mib 
> module[mplsInSegmentTable]
> 
> 
> Hi! Few comments in-line regarding the indexing of the 
> mplsInSegmentTable
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:13 AM
> > To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'MPLS WG'
> > Subject: RE: prequeal to WG lat call om the LSR mib module
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET] On Behalf
> > > Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:14 AM
> > > To: MPLS WG
> > > Subject: RE: prequeal to WG lat call om the LSR mib module
> > > 
> >
> <snip...>
> 
> stuff deleted...

	The problem with designing in the ideal is that
real implementations will have issues with it. The
IETF generally considers implementation and deployment 
experience highly over the ideal. I have provided some 
real world feedback that indicates that a single Unsigned32 
index is insufficient. I also have about 300 customers 
that have provided me with the same feedback. I think that
it has little to do with my specific style of implementation
either (see below).
more stuff deleted..

	--Tom