[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Challenges for the BGP MIBv2
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 05:20:29PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> Given recent answers in this thread, I can understand why the mount
> point of the extention is irrelevant. However, from a conceptual
> standpoint and also given the issues raised in the recent Early IANA
> Allocation Internet-Draft, wouldn't an IANA managed namespace in
> the BGP MIB make more sense, especially since these are extensions?
> After all, the extension modules can't be used independantly of the
> BGP MIB and placing them under the BGP tree would reflect this dependency.
Again, the mount point is irrelevant. There is no technical benefit
of having all BGP modules in a separate branch. No, there is no
benefit. Really.
> I don't have a strong opinion on this. However, the primary object
> in the MIB review guidelines is that the WG managed the space
> rather than IANA.
>
> > This seems to answers my question. You will probably have to rewrite
> > most of the current MIB anyway to make it address family independent.
>
> This is one of my remaining questions that had been addressed to
> our previous MIB doctor. When re-writing the MIB, since most objects
> will require outright replacing, will this be placed under the
> existing mib-2.15 as new objects or should I expect a new mib-2
> mount point?
They will most like be rooted below mib-2 (but not under mib-2.15).
See above.
> Knowing the expected answer to this allows for a small amount of
> re-use of a few existing objects.
Whether existing objects still can be used has nothing to do with
where your module is registered. Registration of modules and the
status of definitions contained in the modules are orthogonal
concepts.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany