Subject: [Isis-wg] Aligning MIB values with Implementation values

From: Jeff Parker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:29:55 -0500

I've received the following request to align MIB values with
implementation values.  

As Neal notes, I had been following an admonition to avoid the
use of 0 as the value of an enumeration.  However, I don't
think this is a prohibition.  

There are two things we could do:
	Make the mapping be the identity (so that Up becomes 0, etc)
	Make the mapping be addition (subtraction) by 1

Any objections to doing the first?

- jeff parker
- axiowave networks

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Jeff,

The isisISAdjState values are inconsistent with the those in the 3-way
handshake draft.  Because of this, my code must translate between the two.

The MIB has values:

           Initializing 1
           Up           2
           Down         4

Whereas the 3-way handshake draft has these different values for adjacency
state:

           Initializing 1
           Up           0
           Down         2

Any chance the MIB values could be made to be consistent?  I note that in
the MIB there appears to be a desire to avoid the use of the number "0" as a
value for an entry, and so in this case giving values such as Up 1,
Initializing 2, Down 3, would be pretty good since there is an easy function
to map between the two values.

Secondly, the fields for Adjacency usage are inconsistent with those values
that one might use to index into the 10589 state tables for received hellos
(8.2.4.2).  Looking at table 6, which contains all the indecis, the ideal
index values for adjusage would be:

             None:          0
             L1:            1
             L1andL2:       2
             L2-only        3

The mib has values:
             Undefined:     1
             level1         2
             level2         3
             level1and2     4

As before, if 0 is being avoided values such as none: 1 l1: 2, l1andl2 3
l2-only 4, would be preferable.

I realize this isn't terribly important, but there is some confusing code
that maps between the table indices and the MIB values that makes this part
of the code a little more difficult to read.  No translation would improve
this bit of code's readability.

Thanks for your attention,

  --Neal
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg