RE: RE: available connections thoughts

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

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)=20
> Sent: 16 March, 2004 4:17 PM
> To: '[email protected]'
> Cc: '[email protected]'
> Subject: FW: [Hubmib] RE: available connections thoughts
>=20
>=20
> if-mibers,
>=20
> This discussion happening in the hubmib wg may benefit from=20
> your feedback. The I-D in cause is=20
> http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-h
> ubmib-efm-mib-00.txt.
>=20
> Thanks and Regards,
>=20
> Dan
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----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
>=20
>=20
> 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=20
> > un-justified multiplication of the number of rows? We should be
> > careful here. The ifStack like models have little deployment=20
> > today, and the concern about the multiplication of the number=20
> > of entries in devices with multiple overlayed interfaces may=20
> > be related. What is the opertional benefit from having a=20
> > 'nonexistant' enumerated value defined?
>=20
> Anything that manages a large number of interfaces (such as=20
> 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.=20
>=20
> The current ifStackTable and ifInvStackTable have entries=20
> for unconnected upper and lower interfaces.  From RFC2864:
>=20
>    "For example, two rows exist even for an interface which has
>     no others stacked on top or below it:
>=20
>        ifInvStackStatus.z.0=3Dactive
>        ifInvStackStatus.0.z=3Dactive
>=20
>     This table contains exactly the same number of rows as the
>     ifStackTable, but the rows appear in a different order."
>=20
> I suspect a "nonexistant" enumeration is equivalent to the above.
> You may have noted my comment that:
>=20
> > Note that "nonexistant" implies that the hypothetical=20
> > "can connect" table would track that two interfaces cannot
> > physically be connected, which seems kinda pointless. =20
>=20
> In which I meant, "I see no sense to a nonexistant enumeration". =20
> Which is why I left it out of the later enumeration. :)
>=20
> --=20
> Bob Ray <[email protected]>
>=20
>=20
>=20