Re: RE: FWD: Restart ifmib WG?

Dave,

> There's been a number of suggestions on this list
> for improvements that would be useful to add in a 
> supplemental IF MIB module in a separate RFC.
> On this topic, I recently received some IF MIB 
> feedback from folks here in Microsoft on things 
> they considered to be missing:
> > I also see RFC to be inadequate in not being able 
> > to report -not known- for -current- link state and 

The value 'unknown' is already defined got ifOperStatus.

> > speed (and instead using maximum link speed) 
> > Not having separate [objects] for xmit and 
> > receive link speeds, not having an object for 

The issue of link speed, both unknown speed and different speeds for
xmit/rcv, has been discussed on several previous occasions, and on each
such occasion the WG decided that any additional objects should be
placed in media-specific MIBs.  As I recall, the argument went
something like this: we have done dozens (maybe even hundreds) of
media-specific MIBs; what has changed now that didn't apply to all
those we have already done, and if it didn't apply to all those we
have already done, why is it needed now??

> > permanent mac address, no support for power 
> > management, etc.

The number of interface types which have MAC addresses and support
"power management" is certainly *less* than the number of interface
types which don't.  Thus, again, this is media-specific.

Keith.