Re: Challenges for the BGP MIBv2

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

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, 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?

Actually, the MIB review guidelines don't mandate that.  The MIB
Doctors did discuss this, but the consensus was that we would not
make such a rule.  What is in the guidelines is a very strong
statement that it is NOT RECOMMENDED for WGs to maintain their own
registries, because in the past this has not worked well, even for
the RMONMIB WG, which has had many of the same key participants for
over a decade.  What in practice is now required is that _if_ there
are assignments under a defined extension point (as you propose),
_then_ there must be an IANA-maintained registry to record them.

> If so, why?

The reason why _I_ advocate direct registration under mib-2 (or
transmission) is to avoid the creation of more IANA registries
than are really necessary.

Mike Heard