Subject: Re: New BPI MIB Consensus

From: "Mike St. Johns" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 08:38:41 -0700

Hi -

Don't implement the -01 mib.  Its got some fatal problems - specifically, 
table indexes change without changing the OIDs.

Cablelabs is going to issue the -00 mib as an informational RFC and that 
will be the requirement for DOCSIS1.0.  I'm currently working on the next 
version of the MIB and that one will be required for BPIplus (or some 
iteration of it).

Mike

At 09:20 AM 5/6/99 -0500, Ramname Reena wrote:
>  <<bpimib-120798.txt>>
>Has DOCSIS specified any time/date to implement this  updated MIB,  pl.
>clarify.
>
>Thanks
>
>Reena Ramname
>Thomson Consumer Electronics
>email: [email-masked]
>ph: 317-587-5183
>
>
>
>
>
>WARNING: The remainder of this message has not been transferred.
>The estimated size of this message is 54840 bytes.
>Click on the server retrieve icon above and check mail again to get the 
>whole thing.  If the server retrieve icon is not showing, then this 
>message is no longer on the server.

---

From: Guenter Roeck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 09:06:09 -0700 (PDT)

Does this mean you expect us to implement something that will require
structural code changes, especially thanks to the multicast stuff,
and you tell us at the same time that we can throw it away 
just a little later ?

Sounds like fun :-).

Guenter

---

From: "Mike St. Johns" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 10:50:50 -0700

Hi Guenter -

The index has to change, because of the new DOCSIS1.1 interpretations for 
things like SAIDs.  Specifically for multicast as you surmised.  That means 
that the table itself has to move to new MIB space, and it seems to make 
more sense to move the entire mib to new mib space instead as we go to BPI+.

Sorry... what do you expect with a work in progress?  (And I mean DOCSIS, 
not the MIBs)....

Mike

---

From: Guenter Roeck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 11:42:31 -0700

>Sorry... what do you expect with a work in progress?  (And I mean DOCSIS, 
I don't expect anything there. I expect I don't have to ship the work 
in progress,  but your statement indicates that it will be mandatory
in for DOCSIS BPI, and I just do not like it. 

Also, I do not see the point - which management system would use 
the multicast tables in the first place, knowing that it is all 
throw-away code anyway ?

Guenter