Subject: [Bridge-mib] Outstanding BRIDGE-MIB issues

From: "Les Bell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:56:27 +0100

Here is a summary of the outstanding issues on the SMIv2 BRIDGE-MIB,
draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-00.txt

I would like to solicit more input from people to try and close these
issues and get an updated draft out before the December IETF.

(1) dot1dBasePortIfIndex SYNTAX should be InterfaceIndex not Integer32.
    STATUS: This will require the Interfaces MIB to be advanced to
        Full Standard before this MIB can do likewise. Bert Wijnen
        agreed to pursue this.
    COMMENTS: No comments from the mailing list.
    PROPOSED ACTION: Use InterfaceIndex.

(2) Change the comment to refer to "Notifications" instead of "Traps".
    STATUS: Agreed.
    COMMENTS: No comments from the mailing list.
    PROPOSED ACTION: Use Notifications.

(3) dot1dStpPortEnable duplicates ifAdminStatus and should be deprecated.
    STATUS: The consensus from the meeting disagreed, as this is
        intended to disable Bridgeing, not the port itself.
    COMMENTS: Discussions on the mailing list have suggested that this
        could be used to enable/disble the STP feature on a per port
        basis.  See (4).
    PROPOSED ACTION: Do not deprecate it.  See (4) also.

(4) There is no object to turn (r)STP off on a given port.
    STATUS: The consensus from the meeting was not to add this, as it
        would require re-cycling the MIB as Draft, or even Proposed.
    COMMENTS: Discussions on the mailing list indicate confusion about
        what the port should do if STP is "disabled".  It was
        suggested we could use dot1dStpPortEnable for this (see (3)).
        The original intention of this item was to enable/disable
        Bridging on the port.  Some vendors use it to disable the
        port, duplicating ifAdminStaus.  Others leave the port enabled
        but stop running STP.  Should the port forward traffic if STP
        is disabled?  Should the port appear in dot1dStpPortTable?
        IEEE 802.1w EdgePort behaviour provides an alternative
        solution to the problems of running STP on ports where it may
        otherwise be reasonable to disable it.
    PROPOSED ACTION: Requires further input from the mailing list.

(5) Add an object to represent when the last change was made.
    STATUS: The consensus from the meeting was not to add this.
    COMMENTS: No comments from the mailing list.
    PROPOSED ACTION: Do not add it.

(6) smilint 0.2.14 had problems parsing the Nofication definitions.
    STATUS: Agreed.
    COMMENTS: Fixes have been suggested for this.
    PROPOSED ACTION: Do the syntax tweaks and conformance statements.

(7) Should we publish the IEEE 802.1X MIB as an informational RFC?
    STATUS: Some support, but need to ask the mailing list.
    COMMENTS: Two emails supporting publishing it, none against.
    PROPOSED ACTION: Publish the MIB as an Informational RFC.

(8) dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo is an octet string with no size
    specified, thus it can vary in size from 0 to 65535 octets.
    STATUS: Raised on the mailing list by Dave Perkins.
    COMMENTS: No additional comments received.
    PROPOSED ACTION: Requires further input from the mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib

---

From: Michael MacFaden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 20:05:15 -0700

>    PROPOSED ACTION: Do not deprecate it.  See (4) also.

I suggest the proposed action be update the RFC
front matter text to state the "intended" action, suggestion below.

>    PROPOSED ACTION: Requires further input from the mailing list.

My suggestion is to add to the front matter of the updated rfc as follows:

  If the dot1dBasePortIfIndex is zero, then a set operation on 
  dot1dStpPortEnable configures the physical state of the port 
  otherwise a set disables the logical bridging state: forwarding
  and send/receive of BPDUs and does NOT affect the physical port
  which might be routing concurrently. 
  The port remains in the dot1dBasePortTable. 
  Use ifAdminStatus to disable the port. (See interface 
  specific MIB module for what this actually does such as turn off 
  physical link LED on an ethernet(6) port, etc).

  A get[next|bulk] will indicate if the port is actually bridging 
  in the default/first instance of spanning tree (sending STP BPDU's). 
  If multiple instances of spanning tree are running, check with 
  the entLogicalTable for the current status of this port in other
  instances of spanning tree.

I think this is compatible with what I've seen from old DEC bridging
software on Gigaswitches and (also Enterasys Wireless gear that is 
basically DEC) and matches the authors' intent.

Regards,
Mike MacFaden