[Rstplib-users] Re: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01 .txt

[Les B. <Les...@eu...>]

I have just downloaded this draft from the URL:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt

It contains the following definitions:

    dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX      TimeTicks
        MAX-ACCESS  read-only
        STATUS      current
        DESCRIPTION
            "The time (in hundredths of a second) since the
            last time a topology change was detected by the
            bridge entity.
            For RSTP, this reports the time since the tcWhile timer for
            any port on this Bridge was non-zero."
        REFERENCE
            " IEEE 802.1w clause 14.8.1.1."
        ::= { dot1dStp 3 }

    dot1dStpTopChanges OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX      Counter32
        MAX-ACCESS  read-only
        STATUS      current
        DESCRIPTION
            "The total number of topology changes detected by
            this bridge since the management entity was last
            reset or initialized.
            For RSTP, this reports the count of times that there have
            been at least one non-zero tcWhile timer on this Bridge."
        REFERENCE
            " IEEE 802.1w clause 14.8.1.1."
        ::= { dot1dStp 4 }

Also, in section 2.1, on page 5, you will find the following explanation as to
why certain STP parameters have not been included in the MIB.  This is the same
as in RFC 1493.

       SpanningTreeProtocolPort
           .Uptime                     Same as ifLastChange (MIB II)
           .PortIdentifier             Combination of dot1dStpPort
                                       and dot1dStpPortPriority
           .TopologyChangeAcknowledged Since this is transitory, it
                                       is not considered useful.
           .DiscardLackOfBuffers       Redundant


I have included the Port Role (along with the legacy neighbour and the received
BPDU counts) in the list of issues to be discussed at the IETF Bridge-MIB WG
meeting in Salt Lake City next week.

Les...





al...@nb... (Alex Ruzin)@ietf.org on 02/12/2001 10:16:36

Please respond to <Ar...@Op...>

Sent by:  bri...@ie...


To:   <Int...@ie...>, <bri...@ie...>, <std...@ie...>,
      <rst...@li...>
cc:
Subject:  Re: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt


Hi,

I can't find in the draft (as far as in the legacy MIB):
- In the "Bridge protocol parameters"  - "Topology Change" (14.8.1.1.3.d);
legacy STP RFC1493 had
  only dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange (reflects "Time Since Topology
Change", 14.8.1.1.3.b)
  and dot1dStpTopChanges ("Topology Change Count", 14.8.1.1.3.c)

- In "Port Parameters" - Uptime (18.8.2.1.3.a) and "Topology Change
Acknowledge" (14.8.2.1.3.i)

Would you like to point me, which old or new MIB fields reflect these
parameters ?
Or: why they are not reflected ?

Are IETF & IEEE going to get as managed objects "Port Role" ?

Best regards, Alex


_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
Bri...@ie...
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib