Subject: FW: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tewg-mib-05.txt

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 11:52:12 +0200

FYI, I had copied Dave Thaler (author/editor for IP Tunnel
MIB) on my questions regaringd overlap/conflict/relationships.

I think it is good that the WG knows

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: donderdag 4 september 2003 1:56
To: Dave Thaler
Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tewg-mib-05.txt 

Hi Dave,

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Dave Thaler wrote:

> I will review the MIB this week.
> We know we need an IPv6 Tunnel MIB (this fact is even mentioned in RFC
> 2667), or perhaps an Inet Tunnel MIB if we want only one.

> Just from the below, it sounds like the te-link MIB should logically
> extend the IP Tunnel MIB, just like the L2TP MIB does.

There are two different MIBs here -- the TE Tunnel MIB (filename
draft-ietf-tewg-mib-06.txt) and the te link MIB (filename
draft-ietf-mpls-telink-mib-03.txt).

> That is, it shouldn't define its own ifType or its own local or
> remote address objects, and it's probably missing the other things the
> IP Tunnel MIB has (which would be moot if it extended the MIB like L2TP
> does).

As I said, the local and remote address objects for TE Tunnels are
quite different, and a TE tunnel is not necessarily an interface (or
even an IP tunnel).

But you might find that the TE Tunnel MIB performance stats are worth
stealing for the Inet MIB.

> Or I could be wrong... I'll know more once I go through it.

Look forward to your comments.

Kireeti.