Subject: RE: question on bridge mib rfc 1493

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:42:57 +0200

> Have you looked at some of the more recent workn in the
> SMON MIB??  I don't know too much about it as I never
> followed the work too closely.  I just wonder if they may
> have done something to address containment issues better
> than the original bridge mib. If I were you, I'd browse
> the IETF I-Ds to find out where SMON mib status sits today
> and investigate that mib for any "modern" bridging funn ;)
> 
	[Dan]  SMON MIB is a Proposed Standard - RFC 2613. However, I am not
sure that you will find the answer for your problem there

	The Entity MIB would certainly help.  You define the bridge(s) as
entries in entPhysicalTable, define ports and modules as entries in
entLogicalTable. entPhysicalContainsTable defines the hierarchy of the
physical objects. Using the entLPMappingtable in the Entity MIB for mapping
logical to physical entities, and the dot1dbasePortTable in RFC 1493 to map
bridge ports to ifIndex, you actually get the whole picture. Now, you just
need to find the management application that is smart enough to look into
all these tables, or write it by yourself :-)

	Changing indexing of a 'standard'  table certainly rips the standard
label from the implementation. You cannot claim conformance with 1493, and
will not interoperate with an 1493 management application, but only with
your own proprietary application.

	Regards,

	Dan

---

From: Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 09:13:52 -0800 (PST)

> entLogicalTable.

To prevent people from getting confused, I note that you have a typo in
the above.  Each physical entity (the chassis, each module, each port)
is represented as an entry in the entPhysicalTable.  An entry in the
entLogicalTable represents a "logical entity" as represented by a
SNMPv3 context, e.g., a logical bridge which performs the bridging
function for a single VLAN.

Keith.