RPR MIB question

Any comments from IPORPR participants?

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Frank Kastenholz [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: vrijdag 21 maart 2003 15:21
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Keith McCloghrie (E-mail)
> > Cc: Glenn Parsons; 'Thomas Narten'; Dan Romascanu (E-mail); 'Wijnen,
> > Bert (Bert)'
> > Subject: RE: Another Review of RPR MIB
> > 
> > It's been a _long_ time since I looked at this stuff, but my _guess_
> > (and I must emphasize the word GUESS) is that it depends on how
> > you model the interface -- in particular, it would depend on how
> > you define the interface stacking.  
> > 
> > If you model the 802.17 interface as a single Interface, then I
> > would think that the promiscuity would reflect whether the
> > higher layers of software (i.e. the clients of 802.17 such as
> > IP) see all the packets that "go by" the station or not.
> > 
> > If you model the 802.17 interface as a stack of interfaces,
> > some of which might be the lower-level phys (if I have my 
> > terminology right). Then some of these interfaces are in
> > promiscuous mode, others are not, depending on whether
> > they pass all packets up to the next higher interface stack
> > element or not. 
> > 
> > This is my guess. It's worth the paper it's printed on :-)
> > 
> > Frank Kastenholz
> > 
> > Another comment... Glenn says that
> >         "RPR MAC never accepts unicast addresses other than to 
> >          itself when unicast is on local ring"
> > This may be what the standard says to do. However, I have to believe
> > that some vendors will develop hardware that has the ability to 
> > promiscuously sniff every packet on the ring and report that packet
> > up to the higher layers -- without stripping the packet off. Think
> > of protocol analyzers (or security eavesdroppers) and their needs...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Glenn Parsons [mailto:[email protected]]
> > >Sent: donderdag 20 maart 2003 23:21
> > >To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'
> > >Cc: 'Thomas Narten'; Dan Romascanu (E-mail); 'Frank Kastenholz'
> > >Subject: Another Review of RPR MIB
> > >
> > >.. snip ..
> > >
> > >There is a concern that promiscuous mode as defined in the 
> > >Interface MIB (as ifPromiscuous) does not strictly apply 
> > >to RPR.  As far a we can tell there are three possible
> > >mapping options since we understand that we must support it.
> > >Can you suggest which is the most appropriate?
> > >
> > >There 3 options are:
> > > always false - 
> > >    RPR MAC never accepts unicast addresses other than to 
> > >    itself when unicast is on local ring 
> > > always true - 
> > >    RPR MAC as a function of transit path always deals with
> > >    every packet regardless if it is delivered to a local
> > >    client
> > > true - 
> > >    bridge relay client attached and the RPR MAC accepts
> > >    unicast to self, multicast, remote unicast marked 
> > >    with floodbit ; 
> > > false - otherwise
> > >
> > >Cheers, 
> > >Glenn. 
> > 
>