Subject: Doubts in gmpls-te-mib

From: Arumugam R <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:43:32 +0530

Hi Adrian,

While going through the latest gmpls mib, the following observations are
found.

1. A new textual convention has been defined as
MplsGeneralizedLabelTypes, but when it is referred down the line, it is
referred as MplsGeneralizedLabelType only (in
gmplsTunnelHopExplicitLabelType and
gmplsTunnelHopReversePathExplicitLabelType ).
Which one to keep (Types or Type). I think it is a typo error.

2. In GmplsTunnelEntry the first object is gmplsTunnelAdminStatus. While
describing the object it is stated as mplsTunnelAdminStatus and it
refers to
mplsTunnelEntry. If the above entry is to be modified pointing to
gmplsTunnelEntry then I think all other objects have to be shifted one
step down since
gmplsTunnelOperStatus has a value { gmplsTunnelEntry 1 }. Will it be
modified or the AdminStatus will be removed from the TunnelEntry.

3. Also gmplsTunnelGPID and gmplsTunnelRNC are pointing to the same
value { gmplsTunnelEntry 6 }. I think this has to be changed i.e.
shifted down.

In the present TE mib ( te-mib-06), the MplsTunnelHopEntry does not have
the support of signaling Unnumbered Links in EROs. It is also not
mentioned in the
GmplsTunnelHopEntry. Will it be mentioned in future, in any one of the
mibs or is it left to the implementation.

Thanks and regards
Arumugam R

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:25:40 -0400

Arumugam

Hi and thanks.
> Which one to keep (Types or Type). I think it is a typo error.
Got it.
Keep Types.

> modified or the AdminStatus will be removed from the TunnelEntry.
My view is that gmplsAdminStatus is not required and should be removed.

> value { gmplsTunnelEntry 6 }. I think this has to be changed i.e.
Thanks

> mibs or is it left to the implementation.
We are debating whether this should go in here.  It is simple to add.
The issue is that it is not strictly a GMPLS feature.

Regards,
Adrian