The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] WG last call on LSR and LDP MIB modules - setting dates
At 02:03 PM 6/18/03 -0400, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote: > > Jerry, > > I do fully agree with Harmen's statement >that the MIBs need to be wrapped up ASAP and >appreciate his feedback as an operator. I think >that we are well on this track. Agreed. > > To address your statement about requirements, >as discussed previously offline with yourself >and the MIB co-authors, many of the requirements >you listed below require changes to the LDP protocol >itself. Given this, I suggest that you consult with >other SPs in the WG on these requirements to make sure >that they are consistent. I personally have not been hearing >any of these requirements from other SPs that participate >in the MPLS WG. In addition, I suggest that you >direct your requirements to the authors of the LDP >specifications and propose extensions/additions there >first because the MIBs cannot manage what the protocols >will not provide. The remaining requirements you listed My read of the draft is that the authors are indeed requesting changes to the LDP protocol. One example is the discussion on sessions being enabled/disabled. As Tom points out, this is not in the MIB because it is not in the protocol. Additionally, there are several claims made about the NMS but these are not given in any context. For example, is not clear how many nodes are on the network, how many nodes an NMS is monitoring, if an out-of-band management network is being used, what other MIBs are supported on the device and being polled for by the NMS? etc. Context would be helpful to better understand what the problem is that is trying to be solved. Why does the NMS have problems with the LDP-MIB and not with the polling for other MIBs? That does not make sense to me. A question was made privately to one of the authors at the Atlanta IETF that perhaps a MIB which stores LDP counter information in a history table (such as is done in SONET) could be useful to them? I did not receive any response to this question. So I am asking again, why wouldn't a history table solve some of the issues? If history tables would be thought useful, this could be proposed to the working group in a separate MIB module, but would be outside the scope of the present LDP-MIB. -Joan >below apply specifically to the PPVPN-MPLS-VPN MIB and not >to the base MPLS MIBs which are in WG last call presently. > > --Tom > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS [mailto:gash@att.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:43 PM >> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Loa Andersson; MPLS WG >> Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS; >> Chung, Li-Jin W, ALABS; ppvpn@nortelnetworks.com >> Subject: RE: WG last call on LSR and LDP MIB modules - setting dates >> >> >> Bert, Loa, All, >> >> I'd like to follow up on Wai Sum's comments below, and >> encourage that high-priority MPLS-MIB problems/requirements >> identified through extensive testing be addressed in the MPLS >> MIB modules. >> >> The MPLS MIB problems/requirements are identified in >> http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lai-mpls-mib-rqmts-00.tx >> t, and are critical operator requirements stemming from >> detailed lab testing by Li Chung and others at AT&T. >> MPLS-VPNs aren't going to operate as well as needed until and >> unless these requirements are met. It is expected that >> operators wishing to use the same MPLS MIBs would have >> similar concerns. >> >> The I-D does not propose specific MIB extensions based on the >> requirements. Rather, such extensions are left to the MIB >> designers, in order to avoid past discussions of why specific >> extensions won't work. But so far there is no help or >> response from MIB designers on how to meet the requirements, >> even though the problems have been identified on email lists >> for more than one year. >> >> Here is a summary of requirements (R1,R2,R3 LDP related; >> R4,R5 VPN related): >> >> R1. It is required to capture the signaling usage/performance >> of the LDP Entities, as well as the traffic usage/performance >> of the LDP Sessions. R2. It is required to ensure persistency >> of information in the LDP-MIB Entity Table and Entity >> Statistics Table, whenever an LDP Entity is disabled and then >> re-enabled. R3. It is required that a count be reported of >> mplsNumVrfRouteMaxThreshExceeded notification when the >> operator-defined VRF maximum route threshold is exceeded. R4. >> It is required to have an explicit mapping between VRF, RD, >> and RT in the mplsVpnVrfRouteTargetTable table. R5. It is >> required to track the number of BGP prefixes on the PE-CE >> link, and that the BGP neighbor maximum-prefix limit on the >> PE-CE link be used to limit the number of eBGP routes >> injected in the VRF. >> >> I agree with Harmen Van der Linde, "We need to get this MPLS >> MIB module, together with the MPLS LDP and MPLS VPN modules, >> standardized ASAP. There is a critical need for these MPLS >> MIB modules for management of MPLS-enabled networks, which >> are currently being deployed by many service providers." >> >> Bert threatened at IETF-56 to start over on MPLS MIBs if not >> finished by IETF-57. >> >> We need the MPLS MIB designers to meet critical requirements >> and complete ASAP. >> >> Thanks, >> Jerry >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS >> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:52 PM >> To: Loa Andersson; MPLS WG >> Cc: Chung, Li-Jin W, ALABS; Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS >> Subject: RE: WG last call on LSR and LDP MIB modules - setting dates >> >> I would like to bring to your attention, once again, the >> requirements in >> http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lai-mpls-mib-rqmts-00.txt >> >> For the LDP and possibly the LSR MIBs, requirements are >> specified in the above I-D, which include, for example, >> requirements for performance and fault management so as to >> lessen dependence on the NMS. Such capabilities should be >> considered based on the requirements, and if appropriate, >> should be included in the appropriate MIBs. >> >> Thanks, Wai Sum >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.se] >> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:24 AM >> To: MPLS WG >> Subject: WG last call on LSR and LDP MIB modules - setting dates >> >> Folks, >> >> the time for this wg call has been extended to June 24th noon CET. >> >> /Loa >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: WG last call on LSR and LDP MIB modules - CORRECTION! >> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:12:00 +0200 >> From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> >> To: MPLS WG <mpls@UU.NET> >> CC: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>, Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>, Alex >> Zinin <zinin@psg.com> >> >> All, >> >> a misunderstanding between me and the authors resulted in >> that the wrong version of the LDP mib module was sent to this >> wg last call. >> >> The correct version is >> >> <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mib-11.txt> >> >> this has just been sent for publication (and with a copy to >> the mailing list). >> >> My take is that we continue the wg last call as planned, but >> as soon as I see the LDP mib being published I will extend >> the last call period. This way will get both a head start and >> the required period of time. >> >> /Loa >> >> Loa Andersson wrote: >> >> > All, >> > >> > this is to initiate a two week wg last call on >> > >> > Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching >> > Router (LSR) Management Information Base >> > <draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-10.txt> >> > >> > and >> > Definitions of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol Label >> > Switching, Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) >> > <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mib-10.txt> >> > >> > this wg last call ends June 22nd, and is limited to the >> changes in the > IDs since the previous wg last call, as >> well as interdependencies between > the two mib modules and >> the mib modules listed below. > > For the LSR MIB please >> re-read the mail I sent to the list June 6 called > >> "prequeal to WG last call on the LSR mib module" > > A >> usual silence will be understood as support, but this would >> not > necessarily stop you from giving positive comments. >> Please do. > > There are more MIB modules coming up for wg >> last call and that have been > through wg last call, all of >> those will have interdependencies. > > 1. the TC mib module >> are wg last called and updated, but waiting for the >> > others to be ready for IESG review >> > <draft-ietf-mpls-tc-mib-07.txt> >> > 2. the TE link MIB module is in wg last call (to end June 13) >> > <draft-ietf-mpls-telink-mib-02.txt> >> > 3. the management overview has been through wg last call >> and has been >> > updated >> > <draft-ietf-mpls-mgmt-overview-05.txt> >> > >> > Two other MIB modules are in the pipe and new version will >> be released > shortly > > 5. The TE mib module >> <draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib-nn.txt> > 6. The FTN mib module >> <draft-ietf-mpls-ftn-mib-nn.txt> > > It is important that >> we complete this process of reviewing and updating > before >> the ID cut off date (June 30) for the Vienna meeting. >> >> >> > >
|
|