The MPLS WG Archive[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[mplsInSegmentTa ble]
> Case-2: If the aim of the NMS is to show/list all > the incoming-mpls-segments, on a per-interface basis, > the GetNext() works perfectly with the original indexing > (ifIndex,label) With the currently proposed Indexing this seams not be easily possible to do anymore (and it has nothing to do with provisioning). Sure you can read the full table. > > Case-3: If the aim of the NMS is to show ALL the > incoming segments or access ALL the incoming > segments, he will need to walk the whole table > and indexing does not matter. Exactly. Marcus > > Thanks, > sanjay > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Shevenell, Michael (Mike) [mailto:mshev@aprisma.com] >> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:11 AM >> To: 'tnadeau@cisco.com'; 'Choudhury, Sanjaya'; mpls@UU.NET >> Subject: RE: prequeal to WG lat call om the LSR mib >> module[mplsInSegmentTa ble] >> >> >> 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 >> >> -------------------------------------- Dr. Marcus Brunner Network Laboratories NEC Europe Ltd. E-Mail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de WWW: http://www.ccrle.nec.de/ Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 29 Mobile: +49 (0) 163 275 17 43 personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus
|
|