Subject: FWD: Re: Last Call: IP Tunnel MIB to Proposed Standard

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:28:49 -0500

What's the WG thinking on this point?

------- Forwarded Message

From: Mike Daniele <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked], Mike Daniele <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:53:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Last Call: IP Tunnel MIB to Proposed Standard

This draft does not support IPv6 tunnel endpoints.

I didn't see any mention in the ifmib archives of this issue
(actually I didn't find any reference to this draft at all, except
 the last call announcement).

So, is the thinking that there will be a separate document
someday for v6?  Ot that it's not an issue worth pursuing?

Regards,
Mike

------- End of Forwarded Message

---

From: "Ted Brunner 503.627.1317" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:13:26 -0800

WG chair attempts to summarize why there has been little/no
discussion on the tunnel mib:

I think the working group's feeling on the tunnel mib is
un-engaged.  The tunnel mib was administratively assigned
to the if-mib working group, after having been developed
elsewhere.  The assignment was reasonable, and a review
of the technical mib writing issues, was done in a WG meeting.
I think the wg feels its job is pretty much done;
intrinsic interest in tunnels resides elsewhere.

This new question (IPv6) is connected with "why use a tunnel,"
and "which tunnel to use" - things which the if-mib wg has not
taken up in any great way.

Heres a thought.  Perhaps the author (Dave) could
suggest a wg which could better comment on the technical side
of IPv6 in the context of the tunnel-mib?

Ted Brunner			VideoTele.com
				Tektronix
				MS 50-475
[email-masked]		14150 SW Karl Braun
503.627.1317			Beaverton OR 97005	

Regards,
Mike

---

From: Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:12:38 -0800 (PST)

Ted,

Actually, I think the issue that Mike raises is more generic than that.
I suggest that there are quite a lot of MIBs having objects defined
using the IpAddress syntax.  Of these only the MIB-II derivatives have
so far had IPv6 alternatives defined.  I suggest that the IETF needs a
consistent policy about if, when and how IPv6 alternatives should be
defined for all such existing and new MIBs.  In the meantime, I'd
suggest the Tunnel MIB be allowed to proceed as-is.

Keith.