The MPLS WG Archive

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

	Because it is possible that the others are not 
implemented.  Because of the minimal duplication,
this seems reasonable.

	--Tom


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Thaler [mailto:dthaler@windows.microsoft.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 2:02 PM
>To: Martin Dubuc
>Cc: Thomas Nadeau; Bert Wijnen; Sudheer Dharanikota; Jonathan 
>Lang; Loa Andersson; Mpls (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: DT's review of draft-ietf-mpls-telink-mib-04.txt
>
>
>Great.  In that case why have redundant objects at all?
>
>-Dave
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Dubuc [mailto:dubuc.consulting@rogers.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 4:32 AM
>> To: Dave Thaler
>> Cc: Thomas Nadeau; Bert Wijnen; Sudheer Dharanikota; Jonathan Lang; 
>> Loa Andersson; Mpls (E-mail)
>> Subject: Re: DT's review of draft-ietf-mpls-telink-mib-04.txt
>> 
>> Dave,
>> 
>> The TE link MIB makes extensive use of the interface table. Our 
>> specification relies on this part of MIB-II.
>> 
>> I will add text in the DESCIRPTION clause to emphasize the 
>> relationship between teLinkLocalIpAddr and ipAddrTable.
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dave Thaler" <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>
>> To: "Martin Dubuc" <dubuc.consulting@rogers.com>
>> Cc: "Thomas Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>; "Bert Wijnen" 
>> <bwijnen@lucent.com>; "Sudheer Dharanikota" <sudheer@ieee.org>; 
>> "Jonathan Lang" <jplang@ieee.org>;
>> "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 4:12 PM
>> Subject: RE: DT's review of draft-ietf-mpls-telink-mib-04.txt
>> 
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Martin Dubuc [mailto:dubuc.consulting@rogers.com]
>> [...]
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Dave Thaler" <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>
>> > To: <tnadeau@cisco.com>; "Martin Dubuc" 
>> > <dubuc.consulting@rogers.com>; "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" 
>> > <bwijnen@lucent.com>; <sudheer@ieee.org>; <jplang@ieee.org>
>> > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 10:11 PM
>> > Subject: RE: DT's review of draft-ietf-mpls-telink-mib-04.txt
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry for the delay, but I've been reading a bunch of relevant
>> documents
>> > so I can help resolve the issue.  Besides the mpls-telink-mib and 
>> > the tewg-mib, I've now read all of the following in entirety:
>> >
>> > [RFC2702] "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS" 
>[OSPF-TE]
>
>> > "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2" [LSP-HIER] "LSP 
>> > Hierarchy with Generalized MPLS TE" [BUNDLE] "Link 
>Bundling in MPLS 
>> > Traffic Engineering" [GMPLS-ROUTING] "Routing Extensions 
>in Support 
>> > of Generalized MPLS"
>> >
>> > as well as some portions of other documents such as 
>> > [MPLS-TE-STD-MIB] and [GMPLS-ARCH].
>> >
>> > Even after all that, the address model was not really 
>cleared up for
>> me.
>> > [LSP-HIER], [OSPF-TE], and [BUNDLE] all contain language 
>related to 
>> > the local and remote IP address.
>> >
>> > I'm back to my original question about:
>> > > it is unclear whether the IP addresses are those used for 
>> > > encapsulation (i.e. like MAC addresses from the point of view of 
>> > > the teLink interface), or those assigned to the inside. I'm 
>> > > assuming the former, since the latter would definitely be
>> > redundant
>> > > with the inet address table like on any other interface.
>> >
>> > In the email below I had assumed the former.  After reading the 
>> > documents above, I'm more inclined to believe it's the latter. Can 
>> > someone confirm this?  Put another way:
>> >
>> > Q: If you look in the ipAddrTable for the corresponding entry for 
>> > the
>> IP
>> > address in a teLinkLocalIpAddr object on a numbered TE 
>link, what is
>> the
>> > value of ipAdEntIfIndex?  What is the relationship of that 
>interface
>> to
>> > the TE link?
>> > (e.g. in the example on page 12, is it the ifIndex of the mpls 
>> > interface, the teLink interface, or the opticalTransport interface?
>
>> > Previously I had assumed the answer would be the opticalTransport 
>> > interface, but
>> now
>> > I'm more inclined to believe it's one of the others in which case 
>> > Thomas' summary of my misunderstanding below would be more or less 
>> > accurate. In any case, none of the documents listed above give a 
>> > clear answer to this question.)
>> >
>> > [Martin] You are right, it is the latter. The IP address is the IP
>> address
>> > of
>> > the teLink interface. It is redundant with ipAddrTable, 
>but we would
>> like
>> > not
>> > to have to rely on the presence of ipAddrTable to get 
>access to this
>
>> > information.
>> 
>> Martin, thanks much for the confirmation.  I'm curious about 
>your last
>
>> statement though.  Are you concerned about implementing this MIB on 
>> systems which do not implement MIB-II?
>> 
>> If you do need redundant objects for some reason, then it would be 
>> good for the DESCRIPTION clause to mention that it is in fact 
>> redundant, so implementers can ensure both objects have the same 
>> value.
>> 
>> -Dave
>