Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-02.txt

From: "Les Bell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:42:28 +0000

Alex,

your suggestion for separate admin and oper values for the port path
cost was originally made on draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-02.txt,
not the RSTP MIB.

I do understand the need to be able to configure a bridge to
automatically determine the path cost of a port, based on the link
speed, as recommended in the standards.  Once you administratively
assign a path cost, changing it again to a value equivalent to the
default value is not the same as automatically determining the path
cost and would not give the desired result if the port re-negotiates
its link speed.  The current MIB does not give us this capability.

I would like to hear some comments from the group, either in favour,
or against, this proposal.

If in favour, should it be added to the SMIv2 Bridge MIB, or the RSTP
MIB?  I prefer the to add it to the RSTP MIB, as the SMIv2 Bridge MIB
is intended only to update the language used for the SMIv1 Bridge MIB,
not to extend the mib.

Les...

[email-masked] (Alex Ruzin) on 26/03/2002 13:31:17

Please respond to [email-masked]

Sent by:  [email-masked] (Alex Ruzin)

To:   [email-masked], Les Bell/GB/3Com
cc:   [email-masked]
Subject:  RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-02.txt

Hi,
I would like to remind my conversation with Les (see below).
I don't see this problem solved in the draft.
Do you want to comment this issue?
Yours truly, Alex

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:28:41 +0200 I replied (asked):
Alex>Les,
Alex>We would like to define "auto selection" for PortPathCost.
Alex>I mean, for example, if dot1dStpAdminPortPathCost32 is set to "0",
Alex>the agent could select dot1dStpOperPortPathCost32 automatically,
Alex>corresponding to table 17-7 in 17.28.2 of 802.1s.
Alex>When dot1dStpAdminPortPathCost32 is set to positive value, agent could
Alex>use this value for dot1dStpOperPortPathCost32.
Alex>I don't see any other solution to force the agent to use table 17.7.
Alex>May be I missed something?
Alex>
Alex>Thank you for your interest in my remarks, Alex

On Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:56 AM Les Bell asked
Les> Alex> I expected to see here the objects
Les> Alex> dot1dStpAdminPortPathCost32 and dot1dStpOperPortPathCost32
Les> Alex> instead of a single dot1dStpPortPathCost32.
Les> Alex> What about it ?
Les> Alex,
Les> Can you explain why we need an Admin and Operational version
Les> of PathCost, please?
Les> Under what circumstances could these values differ?
Les> Les...

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Alex Ruzin)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:04:30 +0200

On Tuesday, March 26, 2002 6:42 PM Les Bell wrote:
Les> your suggestion for separate admin and oper values for the port path
Les> cost was originally made on draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-02.txt,
Les> not the RSTP MIB.

Yes, but RSTP MIB contains the extension to bridge MIB and should
have my proposition (or another solution of this problem) as a correction
along with dot1dStpPathCostDefault.

Les> I do understand the need to be able to configure a bridge to
Les> automatically determine the path cost of a port, based on the link
Les> speed, as recommended in the standards.  Once you administratively
Les> assign a path cost, changing it again to a value equivalent to the
Les> default value is not the same as automatically determining the path
Les> cost and would not give the desired result if the port re-negotiates
Les> its link speed.  The current MIB does not give us this capability.

Yes, you understood me.

Les> I would like to hear some comments from the group, either in favour,
Les> or against, this proposal.

Me too.

Les> If in favour, should it be added to the SMIv2 Bridge MIB, or the RSTP
Les> MIB?  I prefer the to add it to the RSTP MIB, as the SMIv2 Bridge MIB
Les> is intended only to update the language used for the SMIv1 Bridge MIB,
Les> not to extend the mib.

As I pointed above, I think, that you are right, and it should be added to
RSTP MIB.

Apropos, what about MSTP MIB?

Thank you for an attention to my remarks,
yours sincerely, Alex