RE: available connections thoughts
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.hubmib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F056B28A1@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com> |
Actually this use of RowStatus in the EFM Cu MIB is not a good design, and may not fly with the MIB Doctors. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 15 March, 2004 7:15 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: available connections thoughts > > > Bob, > > "Administrative" blocking would certainly be a useful feature to > have in addition to the > physical possibility of connection. An additional field would > be required in > the MIB as the RowStatus is read-only > and shows device capability. > > Regards, > Menachem > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Ray [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 5:14 PM > To: Menachem Dodge > Cc: [email protected]; adslmib mail list; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Mike Sneed > Subject: available connections thoughts > > > I think the can-connect tables (Edward's > efcCuAvailableStackTable and a > proposed InvAvailableTable) need something more than a > RowStatus object. > That is, it would be useful to identify a possible connection as being > **administratively** blocked. That is, that a connection is > physically > possible but blocked for administrative purposes. > > Expanding upon the broadcast video example I used in an > earlier email, > > If video input X can be connected to video output Y > then an entry would exist in the **can connect** table. > > However, there may be reasons to NOT allow X to connect > to Y. The most obvious example (for me) is where a > broadcast facility might not want adult video sources > to EVER be connected to a religious video feed. > > Less obvious examples can be constructed (i.e. data > security). Does this > make sense? > > Building upon this, one might have interface group constructs > and group > level blocking - group A can connect to group B, but group A > cannot connect > to anything from group C. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Bob Ray <[email protected]> > >