[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf-vrrp
Subject:    RE: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-02
From:       "Steve Bates" <Steve.Bates () ind ! alcatel ! com>
Date:       2005-03-08 17:00:19
Message-ID: HJEMLIKOODDKHCNBDMCKKEHCCEAA.Steve.Bates () alcatel ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Mukesh,

Sorry, I reread my question and wasn't sure I understood it myself.  Let me
try again.  Here is part of the DESCRIPTION of the
vrrpAssociatedIpAddrEntry:

               "An entry in the table contains an IP address that is
               associated with a virtual router.  The number of rows
               for a given ifIndex and VrId will equal the number of
               IP addresses associated (e.g., backed up) by the
               virtual router....."

But from the vrrpOperationsEntry description we know that "a given virtual
router is identified by a combination of the IP version, VRID and ifIndex."

No mention is made of the IP version in either the vrrpAssociatedIpAddrEntry
DESCRIPTION or INDEX fields in the MIB.  It seems to me the DESCRIPTION
should read:

               "An entry in the table contains an IP address that is
               associated with a virtual router.  The number of rows
               for a given ifIndex, VrId, and IP version will equal the
               number of IP addresses associated (e.g., backed up)
               by the virtual router....

and INDEX should be:
           INDEX    { ifIndex, vrrpOperationsVrId, vrrpOperationsIpVersion,
                      vrrpAssociatedIpAddrType, vrrpAssociatedIpAddr }

However, the IP version can be inferred from the address type, so it's not
clear to me whether the current text is deliberate or represents an
oversight.  I know very little about SNMP but I thought it was quite strict
about this kind of thing.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Mukesh.K.Gupta@nokia.com [mailto:Mukesh.K.Gupta@nokia.com]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 8:20 PM
To: Steve.Bates@ind.alcatel.com; kalyan.tata@nokia.com
Cc: vrrp@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-02


Steve,

Thanks for reviewing the draft :)

I am not able to understand the concern that you expressed in
point 5.  Could you please put some more light on this ?

====
> 5) A virtual router is identified by Version, Vrid, and
> ifIndex.  Can we
> really identify the virtual router an entry in the
> vrrpAssociatedIpAddrTable
> is associated with without the version?  Is it supposed to be
> inferred from
> the vrrpAssociatedIpAddrType?  If version is added as an
> index it will also
> need to be added to the examples in section 8.
====

Regards
Mukesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vrrp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:vrrp-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Steve Bates
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 1:09 PM
> To: Tata Kalyan (Nokia-ES/MtView)
> Cc: vrrp@ietf.org
> Subject: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-02
>
>
> Hello Kalyan,
>
> A few comments on the draft unified VRRP MIB:
>
> 1) In the vrrpOperationsTable examples in section 8 I believe
> the last two
> rows in the tables for both VR 1 and VR 2 need to have their IpAddrs
> switched.
>
> For VR 1:
>
>    +----+------+--------+-------+-------+---------+--(..)--+
>    | I1 |  2   |   01   |   B   | 1-254 |   Y    |          |
>    +----+------+--------+-------+-------+---------+--(..)---
>    | I1 |  2   |   02   |   M   |  255  |   X     |          |
>    +----+------+--------+-------+-------+---------+--------+
>
>
> For VR 2:
>
>    +----+------+--------+-------+-------+---------+--(..)--+
>    | I2 |  2   |   01   |   M   |  255  |   Y     |          |
>    +----+------+--------+-------+-------+---------+--(..)---
>    | I2 |  2   |   02   |   B   | 1-254 |   X     |          |
>    +----+------+--------+-------+-------+---------+--------+
>
> 2)  For consistency with the diagram, in the IP column of the
> vrrpAssociatedIpAddrTable c and x should be uppercase
>
> 3) Also in the vrrpAssociatedIpAddrTable for both VR 1 and VR
> 2 a row should
> be added for address Y and X respectively.
>
> 4) Accept Mode probably needs to be added to the VrrpOperationsEntry
>
> 5) A virtual router is identified by Version, Vrid, and
> ifIndex.  Can we
> really identify the virtual router an entry in the
> vrrpAssociatedIpAddrTable
> is associated with without the version?  Is it supposed to be
> inferred from
> the vrrpAssociatedIpAddrType?  If version is added as an
> index it will also
> need to be added to the examples in section 8.
>
> 6)  In the vrrpAssociatedIpAddrType description: The latest
> version of the
> draft for VRRP for IPv6 allows multiple IPv6 addresses for a
> virtual router.
> I think this implies that IPv6 is a possible value for
> vrrpAssociatedIpAddrType.
>
> 7) Although authorization has been deprecated a
> vrrpStatisticsInvldAuthType
> statistic might still be useful.
>
>
> Steve Bates
> Alcatel Internetworking
> 801-287-8934
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vrrp mailing list
> vrrp@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
>


_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]