[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Challenges for the BGP MIBv2
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 02:59:45PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 08:34:07PM +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > The IF-MIB is a prominent example where the ifTable and the ifXTable are
> > rooted in very different branches of the OID space. For real management
> > applications, this does not matter at all. BTW, the new module will be
> > rooted below mib-2 anyway according to the MIB review guidelines.
>
> Could you clarify this please. Do you mean that if I create a MIB
> meant to extend BGP, it would be rooted at mib-2 and not rooted
> at a defined extention point within BGP?
Yes.
> If so, why?
We prefer to let IANA manage the OID name space and not to let WGs to
do their own little OID name space management. There were cases where
this approach did not work too well. And it does technically not really
matter where a module is registered. See also the MIB review guidelines
draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-03 section 4.5.
> > I looked through the existing BGP4-MIB today (for some other reason).
> > It is IPv4 specific - do you plan to make it IP version independent?
> > In that case, you have to rewrite it anyway and the whole discussion
> > about extensions of the existing MIB becomes a mood point.
[...]
> The second version not only is address family independant, it is the
> first attempt to deal with the numerous extensions to BGP-4. Unfortunately,
> we get new extensions "frequently" by IETF standards and they progress
> at wildly different rates on the standards track.
This seems to answers my question. You will probably have to rewrite
most of the current MIB anyway to make it address family independent.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany