Re: MALLOC MIB

If people use some protocol or technique to coordinate the
efforts of several MAAS's allocating from a single address
range, each MAAS will need to exclude addresses allocated
by the other MAAS's (and maybe some addresses reserved for
future allocations by the other MAAS's).

This could be done by dividing each allocation range into
several allocation ranges and ensuring that each MAAS only
knows about one of these. But this will prevent the ability
for a MAAS to report (via the Allocation Range Table) on
the overall status of an allocation range: how full is
scope X? and are requests being met? Instead, the status
will be fragmented into separate allocation ranges for
each MAAS. If the MAAS's aren't communicating, then this is
probably the best thing to do. But if they are communicating
(through a directory, an experimental protocol, or whatever),
then I think we want to retain the ability for a MAAS to say
"I'm allocating out of this range, but excluding these
subranges."

So I think we should leave the Exclusion table in the MIB.
People who don't use it can always leave it empty. I welcome
any further discussion, though.

Thanks,

Steve

Dave Thaler wrote:
> 
> I have addressed all but one of the comments of the "MIB
> doctor", and the last comment made me think a bit.
> We have an "exclusion" table in the MIB right now, that
> I believe originated from AAP.  I'd like to propose removing
> the table.
> 
> As far as I can tell, nothing in the MALLOC architecture
> (RFC 2908) or the MADCAP protocol (RFC 2730) requires
> implementing any such concept, and those are what this MIB
> instruments.
> 
> As a reminder, the MIB currently contains 3 tables that are
> relevant to this question:
> Scope Table : contains the scope ranges known (e.g.
>                   Global, LinkLocal, IPv4 Local Scope, etc.)
> Allocation Range Table : contains the subranges legal
>                   to allocate from (e.g. the piece of LinkLocal
>                   Erik Guttman asked IANA for, all of IPv4 Local
>                   Scope except the scope-relative addresses,
>                 your own GLOP range, etc).
> Exclusion Table : "contains sub-ranges which are excluded
>                   from being allocated".  The wording implies
>                   these are subranges of the scope, disjoint
>                   from subranges in the allocation range table.
>                   The description also used to say entries may
>                   be dynamically discovered via some protocol
>                   such as AAP (which we already removed from the
>                   MIB).
> 
> I believe that the Exclusion Table should have been removed
> when AAP was removed, and that for today's uses, exclusions
> are unnecessary (since the Allocation Ranges are manually
> configured without needing to have a concept of exclusions,
> or are acquired as part of experimental protocols outside
> the scope of this MIB).
> 
> Any objections?  (Positive acknowledgements from any of
> Mark, Steve, and Pavlin would be greatly appreciated :)
> 
> -Dave
> _______________________________________________
> malloc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/malloc