RE: RE: available connections thoughts

Sorry, the correct reference is http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-00.txt

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) 
> Sent: 16 March, 2004 4:17 PM
> To: '[email protected]'
> Cc: '[email protected]'
> Subject: FW: [Hubmib] RE: available connections thoughts
> 
> 
> if-mibers,
> 
> This discussion happening in the hubmib wg may benefit from 
> your feedback. The I-D in cause is 
> http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-h
> ubmib-efm-mib-00.txt.
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Ray [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 16 March, 2004 3:32 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Menachem Dodge; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mike Sneed
> Subject: Re: [Hubmib] RE: available connections thoughts
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 16:36, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > This is better. However, your proposal lights another warning
> > beacon for me. Would not this 'nonexistent' value lead to an 
> > un-justified multiplication of the number of rows? We should be
> > careful here. The ifStack like models have little deployment 
> > today, and the concern about the multiplication of the number 
> > of entries in devices with multiple overlayed interfaces may 
> > be related. What is the opertional benefit from having a 
> > 'nonexistant' enumerated value defined?
> 
> Anything that manages a large number of interfaces (such as 
> an OC-3/12 to dsl bridge/router), and that is based to some
> degree upon the cross product of the ifTable is gonna be huge. 
> 
> The current ifStackTable and ifInvStackTable have entries 
> for unconnected upper and lower interfaces.  From RFC2864:
> 
>    "For example, two rows exist even for an interface which has
>     no others stacked on top or below it:
> 
>        ifInvStackStatus.z.0=active
>        ifInvStackStatus.0.z=active
> 
>     This table contains exactly the same number of rows as the
>     ifStackTable, but the rows appear in a different order."
> 
> I suspect a "nonexistant" enumeration is equivalent to the above.
> You may have noted my comment that:
> 
> > Note that "nonexistant" implies that the hypothetical 
> > "can connect" table would track that two interfaces cannot
> > physically be connected, which seems kinda pointless.  
> 
> In which I meant, "I see no sense to a nonexistant enumeration".  
> Which is why I left it out of the later enumeration. :)
> 
> -- 
> Bob Ray <[email protected]>
> 
> 
>