[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: [ipv6mib] So, where were we?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Fwd: [ipv6mib] So, where were we?
- From: Margaret Wasserman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:32:48 -0400
- Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Scott Bradner <email@example.com>, Allison Mankin <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Matt Mathis <email@example.com>, Thomas Narten <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Steve Deering <email@example.com>, Bob Hinden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
- References: <3D92EE70.6658017A@cisco.com>
There have been some recent discussions with the IPv6 MIB design
team regarding the direction of our work on IPv6 MIBs that I
think would be best discussed on the full IPv6 and MIBs lists.
In particular, we have received input from two areas:
(1) Folks who would like to see substantial changes
to the RFC 2096 update (Forwarding Table MIB),
to make it better reflect the structure of
forwarding tables on current equipment, be more
efficient to use, etc.
(2) The authors of a new TCP-related MIB in the transport
area who would like to see their changes merged
with the new TCP MIB under development in IPv6.
This work has been published as:
This whole discussion begs the question of what direction we want
to take with our IP version-independent MIBs, and perhaps raises
a question of how/where this work should be undertaken.
From my perspective, there are two reasonable choices:
(1) Update the current IPv4 TCP, UDP, IP and Forwarding
Table MIBs to be version-independent (i.e. add IPv6).
In this choice, we would make as few changes
to those MIBs as possible, in attempt to make
the implementation of the new version-independent
MIBs as easy as possible for folks who are
adding IPv6 to an existing stack.
This is the work that we originally started in
the IPv6 WG, based on the fact that the main
difference in these MIBs would be a transition
from IPv4 -> IPv4/IPv6, and we have several
IPv6 WG drafts out that reflect this direction.
(2) Develop new MIBs for TCP, UDP, IP and Forwarding
that reflect the state-of-the-art in each area.
This choice involves more work, and may take
longer to be adopted, due to larger changes
from IPv4 to the IPv4/IPv6 versions.
Also, it is pretty clear to me that the IPv6
WG is not the right place to develop a new,
substantially different version of the TCP
or UDP MIBs. It is also questionable whether
a major update to the IP and routing MIBs
should be done in IPv6, or in a separate
IPv4/IPv6 MIBs group.
It is possible that we could do a combined version of these
- The IPv6 WG does the minimal updates to make the
current IPv4 MIBs version-independent.
- State-of-the-art MIBs are developed in other areas
and groups, as appropriate.
What do you folks think?