Re: [802.1] MIB definitions for Link Aggregation

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Wed, 14 May 2003, Les Bell forwarded a message from Murali K.
Vemuri that said:
> I understand that "iso member-body(2) us(840) 802dot3(10006)
> snmpmibs(300) linkagg(43)" is for Link Aggregation.

Yes, except to be syntactically correct it should be something
like {iso member-body(2) us(840) ieee802dot3(10006) snmpmibs(300)
linkagg(43)}

> In that case, the "lagMIB MODULE-IDENTITY" should be having ".1"
> suffixed to the OID of the protocol.

I do not understand this assertion;  there is no such rule in SMIv2.
There is a rule that no other MIB module registration construct can
be associated with this OID (see RFC 2578 3.6(1)), but OID value
assignments (even with the same descriptor) are allowed (see RFC
2578 3.6(2)).

> please let me know whether it is correct to suffix ".1" for the
> standard normative mib defition and use.

Not if you want to interoperate with existing fielded
implementations of the MIB module.  (That is the reason for the
SMIv2 rule that forbids changing the OIDs or descriptors assigned to
OBJECT-TYPE definitions).

//cmh