[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: tunnelMIB (RC2667) implementations and/or deployment
I have a draft in progress. I can send the current version to Wes if
he's still interested in helping.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
> Of Brian Haberman
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:26 AM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Wes Hardaker; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: tunnelMIB (RC2667) implementations and/or deployment
> Given that the IPv6 WG took on the task of updating 2096, 2011,
> 2012, and 2013, we can support the draft if needed. If that is
> the direction, then I would think it is better for me as a chair
> to refrain from directly editing the document. If the choice is
> to do it as an individual submission, I will help, but don't have
> the cycles to be primary editor.
> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> >>Bert> I'd be interested to hear about implementations and/or
> >>Bert> deployment of the tunnelMIB as defined in RFC2667.
> >>Sorry for the late response, but this recently popped back
> >>into memory.
> >>I'm coordinating with a number of vendors that need functionality
> >>mostly like what is in the tunnel mib (specifically monitoring of
> >>endpoints, not so much configuration like Frank is doing). However,
> >>the show stopper for them using this mib is that it's IPv4 only.
> >>I'd be willing to help bring it to IPv6 compliance, but it would
> >>require re-rooting it (obviously) and republishing as proposed.
> > Well... did I now see 3 volunteers to work on this:
> > Wes, Brian, Dave (Thaler) ????
> > Why don't you guys get going with an initial draft?
> > It seems that RFC2667 was not done in a WG to begin with,
> > was it?
> > Bert