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

[<al...@nb...>]

Thank you for the explanations.
Next question: are you going to discuss the possibility to
support an object like dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost to allow automatic
selection of "Port Path Cost" as a function of the speed of the
attached LAN (IEEE 802.1t, Table 8-5) ?

I mean something like (instead of dot1dStpPortPathCost): 
:
          dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost OBJECT-TYPE
              SYNTAX  INTEGER (0..65535)
              ACCESS  read-write
              STATUS  mandatory
              DESCRIPTION
                      "The administrative value of the Port Cost parameter.
                       The value 0 means, that Port Cost will be selected
                       automatically in correspondence with the speed of
                       the attached LAN (Table 8-5) and with the value
                       of dot1dStpPathCostDefault."
              REFERENCE
                      "IEEE 802.1w Section 8.5.5.3, 17.16.5, 17.28.2"
              ::= { dot1dStpExtPortEntry 6 }

          dot1dStpPortOperPathCost OBJECT-TYPE
              SYNTAX  INTEGER 
              ACCESS  read-only
              STATUS  mandatory
              DESCRIPTION
                      "The operational value of the Port Cost parameter.
                       The contribution of this port to the path cost of
                      paths towards the spanning tree root which include
                      this port.  802.1D-1990 recommends that the
                      default value of this parameter be in inverse
                      proportion to the speed of the attached LAN."
              REFERENCE
                      "IEEE 802.1w Section 8.5.5.3, 17.16.5, 17.28.2"
              ::= { dot1dStpExtPortEntry 7 }

Best regards, Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: own...@ma... 
> [mailto:own...@ma...]On Behalf Of Les Bell
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:43 PM
> To: Ar...@op...
> Cc: bri...@ie...; std...@ie...; 
> rst...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] I-D 
> ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have just downloaded this draft from the URL:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemi
> b-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
> 
> 
> 
>