From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Sun Dec 2 05:16:48 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18107 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id FAA09812 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:16:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA09800; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:16:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA09769 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:16:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from apollo.nbase.co.il (apollo.nbase.co.il [194.90.137.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18082; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:15:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from Alexr ([194.90.136.135]) by apollo.nbase.co.il (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-44418U200L2S100) with SMTP id AAA372; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:16:42 +0200 Reply-To: From: alexr@nbase.co.il (Alex Ruzin) To: , , , Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:16:36 +0200 Message-ID: <000c01c17b1a$6d84a420$87885ac2@Alexr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I can't find in the draft (as far as in the legacy MIB): - In the "Bridge protocol parameters" - "Topology Change" (14.8.1.1.3.d); legacy STP RFC1493 had only dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange (reflects "Time Since Topology Change", 14.8.1.1.3.b) and dot1dStpTopChanges ("Topology Change Count", 14.8.1.1.3.c) - In "Port Parameters" - Uptime (18.8.2.1.3.a) and "Topology Change Acknowledge" (14.8.2.1.3.i) Would you like to point me, which old or new MIB fields reflect these parameters ? Or: why they are not reflected ? Are IETF & IEEE going to get as managed objects "Port Role" ? Best regards, Alex _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Dec 3 10:59:40 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09725 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:59:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA00220 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:59:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA00166; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:58:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA00133 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:58:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from columba.eur.3com.com (columba.EUR.3Com.COM [161.71.169.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09188; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:58:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from toucana.eur.3com.com (toucana.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.50]) by columba.eur.3com.com with ESMTP id fB3G0An08803; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:00:16 GMT Received: from notesmta.eur.3com.com (eurmta1.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.206]) by toucana.eur.3com.com with SMTP id fB3Fvj925219; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:57:45 GMT Received: by notesmta.eur.3com.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 80256B17.00587E82 ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:06:35 +0000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM From: "Les Bell" To: agenda@ietf.org cc: Bridge-mib@ietf.org Message-ID: <80256B17.00587684.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:54:03 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Bridge-mib] 52nd IETF - Bridge-MIB WG agenda Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org 52nd IETF Bridge-MIB WG AFternoon Sessions I - 13:00-15:00 Wednesday, December 12, 2001 Proposed Agenda: 13:00 Introduction, mailing lists, etc. 13:05 Call for Implementation Reports (RFCs 1493, 1525, 2674) 13:10 SMIv2 version of Bridge-MIB 13:55 SMIv2 version of Source Routing MIB 14:00 Bridge MIB Extensions 2 (for 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v, 802.1w) 14:45 Internet-Draft for IEEE 802.X MIB 14:50 Other IEEE 802.1 work (802.1s) 14:55 Any other business 15:00 Close The documents under discussion are: - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-srmib-smiv2-00.txt - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-01.txt Bridge MIB issues still to be closed: - dot1dBasePortIfIndex SYNTAX should be InterfaceIndex not Integer32. - dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo is an octet string with no size specified. - There is no object to turn (R)STP off on a given port. Source Routing MIB issues still to be closed: - Should we just re-cycle this at Proposed status? Bridge MIB Extension 2 issues still to be closed: - The U-BRIDGE-MIB and V-BRIDGE-MIB should probably be done as updates to RFC 2674. - Should we include objects for: Port Role, Legacy Neighbour, and received BPDU counters (Rstp, Config, Tcn)? 802.1X issues still to be closed: - Should we publish the IEEE 802.1X MIB as an informational RFC? - Copyright release from IEEE. 802.1s issues: - Should we adopt this as a work item? Les Bell _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Dec 3 11:47:00 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13689 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:47:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA02013 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA01994; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:46:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA01965 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:46:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from columba.eur.3com.com (columba.EUR.3Com.COM [161.71.169.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13671 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:46:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from toucana.eur.3com.com (toucana.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.50]) by columba.eur.3com.com with ESMTP id fB3GmFn13736; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:48:15 GMT Received: from notesmta.eur.3com.com (eurmta1.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.206]) by toucana.eur.3com.com with SMTP id fB3Gjl900028; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:45:48 GMT Received: by notesmta.eur.3com.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 80256B17.005CEA5C ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:54:53 +0000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM From: "Les Bell" To: Arozin@Opticalaccess.com cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org, stds-802-1@ieee.org, rstplib-users@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <80256B17.005CE9B7.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:42:42 +0000 Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01 .txt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org I have just downloaded this draft from the URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt It contains the following definitions: dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TimeTicks MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The time (in hundredths of a second) since the last time a topology change was detected by the bridge entity. For RSTP, this reports the time since the tcWhile timer for any port on this Bridge was non-zero." REFERENCE " IEEE 802.1w clause 14.8.1.1." ::= { dot1dStp 3 } dot1dStpTopChanges OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The total number of topology changes detected by this bridge since the management entity was last reset or initialized. For RSTP, this reports the count of times that there have been at least one non-zero tcWhile timer on this Bridge." REFERENCE " IEEE 802.1w clause 14.8.1.1." ::= { dot1dStp 4 } Also, in section 2.1, on page 5, you will find the following explanation as to why certain STP parameters have not been included in the MIB. This is the same as in RFC 1493. SpanningTreeProtocolPort .Uptime Same as ifLastChange (MIB II) .PortIdentifier Combination of dot1dStpPort and dot1dStpPortPriority .TopologyChangeAcknowledged Since this is transitory, it is not considered useful. .DiscardLackOfBuffers Redundant I have included the Port Role (along with the legacy neighbour and the received BPDU counts) in the list of issues to be discussed at the IETF Bridge-MIB WG meeting in Salt Lake City next week. Les... alexr@nbase.co.il (Alex Ruzin)@ietf.org on 02/12/2001 10:16:36 Please respond to Sent by: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org To: , , , cc: Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt Hi, I can't find in the draft (as far as in the legacy MIB): - In the "Bridge protocol parameters" - "Topology Change" (14.8.1.1.3.d); legacy STP RFC1493 had only dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange (reflects "Time Since Topology Change", 14.8.1.1.3.b) and dot1dStpTopChanges ("Topology Change Count", 14.8.1.1.3.c) - In "Port Parameters" - Uptime (18.8.2.1.3.a) and "Topology Change Acknowledge" (14.8.2.1.3.i) Would you like to point me, which old or new MIB fields reflect these parameters ? Or: why they are not reflected ? Are IETF & IEEE going to get as managed objects "Port Role" ? Best regards, Alex _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Dec 3 15:09:48 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26613 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:09:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA09334 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:09:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA09313; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:09:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA09283 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:09:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from riverstonenet.com (mail.riverstonenet.com [63.113.148.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26609 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:09:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from dperkins-nb2.dsperkins.com by riverstonenet.com (8.9.3+Sun/SMI-SVR4-Yago) id MAA07040; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:08:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20011203111730.02403b30@mail4.bayarea.net> X-Sender: dperkins@mail4.bayarea.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 12:08:36 -0800 To: "Les Bell" From: "David T. Perkins" Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] 52nd IETF - Bridge-MIB WG agenda Cc: Bridge-mib@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <80256B17.00587684.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Les, I believe that it would be appropriate to include time to talk about the upcoming bridge MIB testing planned by IWL. Defining documents is just the first step in creating a standard. Demonstrating interoperability and, if necessary, updating implementations or the documents is they next step in creating a standard. I believe that the WG should ask for an overview of what is to be tested and provide feedback to the test plans to help insure that the testing will provide forward progress for the WG. At 03:54 PM 12/3/2001 +0000, Les Bell wrote: >52nd IETF >Bridge-MIB WG >AFternoon Sessions I - 13:00-15:00 Wednesday, December 12, 2001 >Proposed Agenda: > >13:00 Introduction, mailing lists, etc. >13:05 Call for Implementation Reports (RFCs 1493, 1525, 2674) >13:10 SMIv2 version of Bridge-MIB >13:55 SMIv2 version of Source Routing MIB >14:00 Bridge MIB Extensions 2 (for 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v, 802.1w) >14:45 Internet-Draft for IEEE 802.X MIB >14:50 Other IEEE 802.1 work (802.1s) >14:55 Any other business >15:00 Close > >The documents under discussion are: > - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt > - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-srmib-smiv2-00.txt > - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-01.txt > >Bridge MIB issues still to be closed: > - dot1dBasePortIfIndex SYNTAX should be InterfaceIndex not Integer32. > - dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo is an octet string with no size specified. > - There is no object to turn (R)STP off on a given port. > >Source Routing MIB issues still to be closed: > - Should we just re-cycle this at Proposed status? > >Bridge MIB Extension 2 issues still to be closed: > - The U-BRIDGE-MIB and V-BRIDGE-MIB should probably be done as > updates to RFC 2674. > - Should we include objects for: Port Role, Legacy Neighbour, > and received BPDU counters (Rstp, Config, Tcn)? > >802.1X issues still to be closed: > - Should we publish the IEEE 802.1X MIB as an informational RFC? > - Copyright release from IEEE. > >802.1s issues: > - Should we adopt this as a work item? > >Les Bell Regards, /david t. perkins _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Dec 4 06:12:31 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23316 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 06:12:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id GAA11096 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 06:12:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA11068; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 06:12:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA11037 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 06:12:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from apollo.nbase.co.il (apollo.nbase.co.il [194.90.137.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23307 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 06:12:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from Alexr ([194.90.136.135]) by apollo.nbase.co.il (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-44418U200L2S100) with SMTP id AAA409; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:13:37 +0200 Reply-To: From: alexr@nbase.co.il (Alex Ruzin) To: "'Les Bell'" Cc: , , Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:13:30 +0200 Message-ID: <001401c17cb4$b511e190$87885ac2@Alexr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-reply-to: <80256B17.005CE9B7.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you for the explanations. Next question: are you going to discuss the possibility to support an object like dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost to allow automatic selection of "Port Path Cost" as a function of the speed of the attached LAN (IEEE 802.1t, Table 8-5) ? I mean something like (instead of dot1dStpPortPathCost): : dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER (0..65535) ACCESS read-write STATUS mandatory DESCRIPTION "The administrative value of the Port Cost parameter. The value 0 means, that Port Cost will be selected automatically in correspondence with the speed of the attached LAN (Table 8-5) and with the value of dot1dStpPathCostDefault." REFERENCE "IEEE 802.1w Section 8.5.5.3, 17.16.5, 17.28.2" ::= { dot1dStpExtPortEntry 6 } dot1dStpPortOperPathCost OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER ACCESS read-only STATUS mandatory DESCRIPTION "The operational value of the Port Cost parameter. The contribution of this port to the path cost of paths towards the spanning tree root which include this port. 802.1D-1990 recommends that the default value of this parameter be in inverse proportion to the speed of the attached LAN." REFERENCE "IEEE 802.1w Section 8.5.5.3, 17.16.5, 17.28.2" ::= { dot1dStpExtPortEntry 7 } Best regards, Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-stds-802-1@majordomo.ieee.org > [mailto:owner-stds-802-1@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Les Bell > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:43 PM > To: Arozin@opticalaccess.com > Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org; stds-802-1@ieee.org; > rstplib-users@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] I-D > ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt > > > > > > I have just downloaded this draft from the URL: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemi > b-smiv2-01.txt > > It contains the following definitions: > > dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX TimeTicks > MAX-ACCESS read-only > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "The time (in hundredths of a second) since the > last time a topology change was detected by the > bridge entity. > For RSTP, this reports the time since the tcWhile > timer for > any port on this Bridge was non-zero." > REFERENCE > " IEEE 802.1w clause 14.8.1.1." > ::= { dot1dStp 3 } > > dot1dStpTopChanges OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX Counter32 > MAX-ACCESS read-only > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "The total number of topology changes detected by > this bridge since the management entity was last > reset or initialized. > For RSTP, this reports the count of times that there have > been at least one non-zero tcWhile timer on this Bridge." > REFERENCE > " IEEE 802.1w clause 14.8.1.1." > ::= { dot1dStp 4 } > > Also, in section 2.1, on page 5, you will find the following > explanation as to > why certain STP parameters have not been included in the MIB. > This is the same > as in RFC 1493. > > SpanningTreeProtocolPort > .Uptime Same as ifLastChange (MIB II) > .PortIdentifier Combination of dot1dStpPort > and dot1dStpPortPriority > .TopologyChangeAcknowledged Since this is transitory, it > is not considered useful. > .DiscardLackOfBuffers Redundant > > > I have included the Port Role (along with the legacy > neighbour and the received > BPDU counts) in the list of issues to be discussed at the > IETF Bridge-MIB WG > meeting in Salt Lake City next week. > > Les... > > > > > > alexr@nbase.co.il (Alex Ruzin)@ietf.org on 02/12/2001 10:16:36 > > Please respond to > > Sent by: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org > > > To: , , > , > > cc: > Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] I-D > ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt > > > Hi, > > I can't find in the draft (as far as in the legacy MIB): > - In the "Bridge protocol parameters" - "Topology Change" > (14.8.1.1.3.d); > legacy STP RFC1493 had > only dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange (reflects "Time Since Topology > Change", 14.8.1.1.3.b) > and dot1dStpTopChanges ("Topology Change Count", 14.8.1.1.3.c) > > - In "Port Parameters" - Uptime (18.8.2.1.3.a) and "Topology Change > Acknowledge" (14.8.2.1.3.i) > > Would you like to point me, which old or new MIB fields reflect these > parameters ? > Or: why they are not reflected ? > > Are IETF & IEEE going to get as managed objects "Port Role" ? > > Best regards, Alex > > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge-mib mailing list > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > > > > _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Dec 4 08:24:15 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25205 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:24:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA14570 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:24:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA14533; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:22:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA14501 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:22:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from columba.eur.3com.com (columba.EUR.3Com.COM [161.71.169.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25181 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:22:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from toucana.eur.3com.com (toucana.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.50]) by columba.eur.3com.com with ESMTP id fB4DOXn08404; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:24:33 GMT Received: from notesmta.eur.3com.com (eurmta1.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.206]) by toucana.eur.3com.com with SMTP id fB4DM8924913; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:22:08 GMT Received: by notesmta.eur.3com.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 80256B18.004A43E5 ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:31:10 +0000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM From: "Les Bell" To: "David T. Perkins" cc: Bridge-mib@ietf.org Message-ID: <80256B18.004A42F4.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:18:57 +0000 Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] 52nd IETF - Bridge-MIB WG agenda Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org David, I agree with you. I just want to make sure this does not violate IETF rules before I allocate a slot in the agenda. Les... "David T. Perkins" on 03/12/2001 20:08:36 Sent by: "David T. Perkins" To: Les Bell/GB/3Com cc: Bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] 52nd IETF - Bridge-MIB WG agenda Les, I believe that it would be appropriate to include time to talk about the upcoming bridge MIB testing planned by IWL. Defining documents is just the first step in creating a standard. Demonstrating interoperability and, if necessary, updating implementations or the documents is they next step in creating a standard. I believe that the WG should ask for an overview of what is to be tested and provide feedback to the test plans to help insure that the testing will provide forward progress for the WG. At 03:54 PM 12/3/2001 +0000, Les Bell wrote: >52nd IETF >Bridge-MIB WG >AFternoon Sessions I - 13:00-15:00 Wednesday, December 12, 2001 >Proposed Agenda: > >13:00 Introduction, mailing lists, etc. >13:05 Call for Implementation Reports (RFCs 1493, 1525, 2674) >13:10 SMIv2 version of Bridge-MIB >13:55 SMIv2 version of Source Routing MIB >14:00 Bridge MIB Extensions 2 (for 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v, 802.1w) >14:45 Internet-Draft for IEEE 802.X MIB >14:50 Other IEEE 802.1 work (802.1s) >14:55 Any other business >15:00 Close > >The documents under discussion are: > - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt > - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-srmib-smiv2-00.txt > - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-01.txt > >Bridge MIB issues still to be closed: > - dot1dBasePortIfIndex SYNTAX should be InterfaceIndex not Integer32. > - dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo is an octet string with no size specified. > - There is no object to turn (R)STP off on a given port. > >Source Routing MIB issues still to be closed: > - Should we just re-cycle this at Proposed status? > >Bridge MIB Extension 2 issues still to be closed: > - The U-BRIDGE-MIB and V-BRIDGE-MIB should probably be done as > updates to RFC 2674. > - Should we include objects for: Port Role, Legacy Neighbour, > and received BPDU counters (Rstp, Config, Tcn)? > >802.1X issues still to be closed: > - Should we publish the IEEE 802.1X MIB as an informational RFC? > - Copyright release from IEEE. > >802.1s issues: > - Should we adopt this as a work item? > >Les Bell Regards, /david t. perkins _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Dec 4 12:15:35 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02163 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:15:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA26216 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:15:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26110; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:13:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26053 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:13:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mlry.radlan.co.il ([209.88.194.205]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02093 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:13:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by MLRY with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 19:13:16 +0200 Message-ID: <42AB6BE23C29D511831E0002B32024881627E7@messenger.radlan.co.il> From: Ronen Tausi To: "'Bridge-mib@ietf.org'" Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 19:07:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Subject: [Bridge-mib] 802.1s MIB Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Hi I would like to know what is the state of 802.1s MIB definition ? I didn't show it in the goals and milestones of this group. Tx Ronen _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Dec 4 13:29:42 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05738 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:29:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA28615 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:29:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28591; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28560 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:29:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from columba.eur.3com.com (columba.EUR.3Com.COM [161.71.169.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05723 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:29:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from toucana.eur.3com.com (toucana.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.50]) by columba.eur.3com.com with ESMTP id fB4IV7n04276; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 18:31:07 GMT Received: from notesmta.eur.3com.com (eurmta1.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.206]) by toucana.eur.3com.com with SMTP id fB4ISe920250; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 18:28:40 GMT Received: by notesmta.eur.3com.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 80256B18.00665681 ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 18:37:48 +0000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM From: "Les Bell" To: Ronen Tausi cc: "'Bridge-mib@ietf.org'" Message-ID: <80256B18.006654B1.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 18:25:30 +0000 Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] 802.1s MIB Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org There is no 802.1s MIB yet. In some recent suggestions on the RSTP MIB, made by Alex Rozin, there was an attempt to include 802.1s support. Although Alex's suggestion did not match what is in the current IEEE 802.1s draft, it suggests that there may be some interest in working on a MIB for 802.1s. It is not currently on the charter for the Bridge-MIB WG. Do you think we should add it? Les... Ronen Tausi @ietf.org on 04/12/2001 17:07:44 Sent by: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org To: "'Bridge-mib @ietf.org'" cc: Subject: [Bridge-mib] 802.1s MIB Hi I would like to know what is the state of 802.1s MIB definition ? I didn't show it in the goals and milestones of this group. Tx Ronen _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Dec 4 13:40:23 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06013 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:40:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA29211 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:40:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29199; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:40:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29163 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:40:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from windlord.WWP.COM (mail.worldwidepackets.com [12.46.89.6]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06003 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:39:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by worldwidepackets.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:40:00 -0800 Message-ID: From: Rohit Rohit To: "'Les Bell'" , Ronen Tausi Cc: "'Bridge-mib@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] 802.1s MIB Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:39:59 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Hi Les, I think the MIB for 802.1s should be on the charter for the Bridge-MIB WG. Thanks Rohit -----Original Message----- From: Les Bell [mailto:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 10:26 AM To: Ronen Tausi Cc: 'Bridge-mib@ietf.org' Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] 802.1s MIB There is no 802.1s MIB yet. In some recent suggestions on the RSTP MIB, made by Alex Rozin, there was an attempt to include 802.1s support. Although Alex's suggestion did not match what is in the current IEEE 802.1s draft, it suggests that there may be some interest in working on a MIB for 802.1s. It is not currently on the charter for the Bridge-MIB WG. Do you think we should add it? Les... Ronen Tausi @ietf.org on 04/12/2001 17:07:44 Sent by: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org To: "'Bridge-mib @ietf.org'" cc: Subject: [Bridge-mib] 802.1s MIB Hi I would like to know what is the state of 802.1s MIB definition ? I didn't show it in the goals and milestones of this group. Tx Ronen _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Dec 4 16:52:30 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13918 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:52:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA05417 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:52:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA05398; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:52:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA05370 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:52:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from palrel12.hp.com (palrel12.hp.com [156.153.255.237]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13912 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:52:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from rosemail.rose.hp.com (rosemail.rose.hp.com [15.96.64.26]) by palrel12.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6361F1F7AB; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:51:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from rose.hp.com (ros54018fli.rose.hp.com [15.29.17.171]) by rosemail.rose.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.1/8.7.3 SMKit7.02) id NAA19717; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:51:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C0D4555.5E185553@rose.hp.com> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 13:51:17 -0800 From: John Flick X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rohit Rohit Cc: "'Les Bell'" , Ronen Tausi , "'Bridge-mib@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] 802.1s MIB References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would think the IESG would expect us to at least be in WG last call on the work items in our current charter before asking them to add new work items. Another issue with 802.1s is that we really need to have a pretty stable draft from IEEE before we start writing a MIB for it. I don't think they are quite there yet... John Rohit Rohit wrote: > > Hi Les, > > I think the MIB for 802.1s should be on the charter > for the Bridge-MIB WG. > > Thanks > Rohit > > -----Original Message----- > From: Les Bell [mailto:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 10:26 AM > To: Ronen Tausi > Cc: 'Bridge-mib@ietf.org' > Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] 802.1s MIB > > There is no 802.1s MIB yet. > > In some recent suggestions on the RSTP MIB, made by Alex Rozin, there was an > attempt to include 802.1s support. Although Alex's suggestion did not match > what is in the current IEEE 802.1s draft, it suggests that there may be some > interest in working on a MIB for 802.1s. It is not currently on the charter > for > the Bridge-MIB WG. Do you think we should add it? > > Les... > > Ronen Tausi @ietf.org on 04/12/2001 17:07:44 > > Sent by: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org > > To: "'Bridge-mib @ietf.org'" > cc: > Subject: [Bridge-mib] 802.1s MIB > > Hi > > I would like to know what is the state of 802.1s MIB definition ? > I didn't show it in the goals and milestones of this group. > > Tx > Ronen > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge-mib mailing list > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge-mib mailing list > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge-mib mailing list > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Dec 5 11:28:55 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26602 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:28:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA22883 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:28:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22862; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:28:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22829 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:28:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (root@mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de [134.169.34.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26594 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:28:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (IDENT:root@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de [134.169.34.84]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA18311; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 17:28:29 +0100 (MET) Received: (from schoenw@localhost) by haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fB5GSTA13581; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 17:28:29 +0100 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 17:28:29 +0100 Message-Id: <200112051628.fB5GSTA13581@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> X-Authentication-Warning: haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de: schoenw set sender to schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de using -f From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: [Bridge-mib] comments on draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org I briefly looked at the SMIv2 version of the MIB and found the following issues: - I suggest to not use lines consisting of just hyphens in the comments as it is tricky to use the right number of hyphens and others may take this as an example for getting it wrong. - InterfaceIndex must be imported from IF-MIB. - There is a double "" at the end of the REFERENCE clause of dot1dStpPriority. I also checked the changes using smidiff and found the following issues: - You only want to have REVISION clauses for published MIB - not for each interim version. - You replaced the MacAddress definition with the definition from SNMPv2-TC - which is in principal OK. However, other MIBs might import this from BRIDGE-MIB - so you should name this change in the DESCRIPTION clause of the revision statement. - You changed the access of dot1dBasePort from read-only to not-accessible which I think is problematic since fielded implementations implement it as read-only. - The added text in the description of dot1dStpTopChanges does not read well. - Text added to the DESRIPTION of dot1dStpPortPriority says that legal values are 0-240, in steps of 16. However, the SYNTAX says this is Integer32 (0..255). - The DESCRIPTION of dot1dStpPortPathCost says that permissible values must be extended beyond what the SYNTAX allows. What is the deal? Fix this now? - The access of dot1dTpFdbAddress changed from read-only to not-accessible which I think is problematic since fielded implementations implement it as read-only. - The access of dot1dStaticAddress changed from read-create to not-accessible which I think is problematic since fielded implementations implement it as read-create. - dot1dStaticReceivePort is of type Integer32 (1..65535) while text in the DESCRIPTION talks about the special value 0. - The access of dot1dStaticReceivePort changed from read-create to not-accessible which I think is problematic since fielded implementations implement it as read-only. - Should dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo not have an upper length limit? Assuming you can not have more than 65535 ports, the upper limit would be 8192, e.g. (SIZE (0..8192)). - Should the columns in the dot1dStaticTable not in general be read-create rather than read-write? Does it make sense to describe in sentence how you actually create new entries via management operations? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Muehlenpfordtstr. 23, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany Fax: +49 531 391 5936 _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From hmkq39@yahoo.com Thu Dec 6 21:58:29 2001 Received: from sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.163.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22872 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 21:58:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-av-2.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-2.cisco.com [171.69.24.12]) by sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id fB72UeV26435 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 18:30:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from proxy1.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-2.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fB72Uek07687 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 18:30:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from malaga.cofaran ([195.53.2.30]) by proxy1.cisco.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fB72UMU06904 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 18:30:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from londres.cofaran (cfanet.cofaran.es [195.53.2.15]) by malaga.cofaran (8.8.8/SCO5) with SMTP id BAA17092; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:50:59 GMT Message-Id: <200112070150.BAA17092@malaga.cofaran> Received: from 216.126.161.52 by londres.cofaran (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 07 Dec 2001 01:54:54 +0100 (Hora estándar romance) From: "Andrew Shutre" Subject: Your Competition Will #6A52 To: accept38s@malaga.cofaran X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE VÐßD.1712.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 17:58:58 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a MIME Message ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0" ------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ***** This is an HTML Message ! ***** ------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FREE Computer With Merchant Account Setup

COMPLETE CREDIT CARD PROCESSING SYSTEMS FOR YOUR BUSINESS=2E INTERNE= T - HOME BASED - MAIL ORDER - PHONE ORDER

Do you accept credit cards? Your competition does!

 

Everyone Approved - Credit Problems OK!
Approval in less than 24 hours!
Increase your sales by 300%
Start Accepting Credit Cards on your website!
Free Information, No Risk, 100% confidential=2E
Your name and information will not be sold to thrid parties!
Home Businesses OK! Phone/Mail Order OK!
No Application Fee, No Setup Fee!
Close More Impulse Sales!

Everyone Approved!

Good Credit or Bad!  To= apply today, please fill out the express form below=2E It contains all the information we need to get your account approved=2E For a= rea's that do not apply to you please put "n/a" in the box=2E

Upon receipt, we'll fax you with all of the all Bank Card Application documents necessary to establish your Merchant Account=2E Once returned we= can have your account approved within 24 hours=2E
 

Service Industry Standard

US
Site Inspection $50 - $75 FREE
Shipping $50 - $75 FREE
Warranty $10 Per Month= FREE
Sales Receipts $10 - $50&nbs= p; FREE
Fraud Screening

$=2E50 - $1=2E00
Per Transaction

 FREE
Amex Set Up $50 - $75 FREE
24 Hour Help Line $10 Month FREE
Security Bond $5000- $10,00= 0
Or More		 NONE

This is a No Obligation Qualification Form and is your first step to accepting credit cards=2E By filling out this form you will= "not enter" in to any obligations o= r contracts with us=2E We will use it to determine the best p= rogram to offer you based on the information you provide=2E You will be c= ontacted by one of our representatives within 1-2 business days to go over = the rest of your account set up=2E

<= font color=3D"#cc0000">Note:  All Information Provided To Us Will Remain= 100% Confidential !! 

Apply Free With No Risk!

Pleas= e fill out the express application form completely=2E
Incomplete information m= ay prevent us from properly processing your application=2E
Your Full Emai= l Address:
be sure to use your full address (i= =2Ee=2E user@domain=2Ecom)
Your Name:
Business Name:=
Business Phone= Number:
Home Phone Num= ber:
Type of Busine= ss:
Retail Business
Mail Order Business
Internet Based Busines= s
Personal Credi= t Rating:
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
How Soon Would= You Like a Merchant Account?


Your info= rmation is confidential, it will not be sold or used for any other purpose,= and you are under no obligation=2E Your information will be used solely for the purpose of evaluating= your business or website for a merchant account so that you may begin acce= pting credit card payments=2E


List Removal/OPT-OUT Option
Click Herem ------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0-- ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0-- From moneymasters@usa.net Sat Dec 8 18:38:36 2001 Received: from sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.163.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05419 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:38:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-av-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-1.cisco.com [171.69.11.130]) by sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id fB8NCGV18662 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:12:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from proxy2.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-1.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fB8NCGa14122 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:12:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from svr.scts.com.cn (IDENT:notes@[210.78.29.133]) by proxy2.cisco.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fB8N7NB08774 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:07:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from plain ([65.138.117.72]) by svr.scts.com.cn (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.7) with SMTP id 2001120803283219:1395 ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:28:32 +0800 From: bridge-sanfran@hotmail.com Reply-To: moneymasters@usa.net To: bridge-sanfran@hotmail.com Subject: PROVEN way to have more MONEY for the HOLIDAYS! Time:11:27:28 AM Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:27:28 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on svr/Sctsweb(Release 5.0.7 |March 21, 2001) at 2001-12-08 03:28:35 AM, Serialize by Router on svr/Sctsweb(Release 5.0.7 |March 21, 2001) at 2001-12-09 07:12:13 AM, Serialize complete at 2001-12-09 07:12:13 AM Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="DEFAULT_CHARSET" Dear, bridge1997 $$ GUARANTEED WAY TO QUICKLY HAVE EXCELLENT CREDIT!! $$ Dear Friend, Give yourself the ADVANTAGE of enjoying life more with EXCELLENT CREDIT!! Over the past 8 years I have perfected a system called the Proven Credit Advantage Program. It's a guaranteed way for legally getting an excellent credit rating almost instantly. Here's how: If you have bad credit you will simply go through my easy 5 step program to quickly get a new, legal, unblemished credit file and establish Excellent Credit. If you don't have bad credit, but want to make your existing credit EXCELLENT, we will go straight to STEP 5. Step 1 - Because no two people in the United States have the same Social Security Number, Banks and Creditors access your credit file almost entirely by your SS#. You will not want to change your Social Security Number because it is extremely difficult to do so and you need it for your Employment, Taxes and Social Security Benefits. The FEDERAL PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 clearly states that only the Government and your employer can force you to use your SS#. Because of this law you are allowed to legally use another 9 digit number to use in place of your Social Security # on credit applications. The first day you become our client, you will receive your own number through the Employer Identification Number Program. You will need us for this because 95% of all Employer Identification Numbers, although 9 digits, do not look anything like Social Security Numbers and cannot be used on credit applications. We will legally get you an Employer Identification Number that fits in the same range of Social Numbers in use today. Because the Federal Laws do not require you to give your SS# to anyone besides your Employer and the Government, you can now legally use this number in place of your SS# on credit applications. Remember, your new number will only be used for new credit. Step 2 - No two people with the same name have the same mailing address, so you will need to obtain a new mailing address for use on your new credit file. A friend, relative or mailbox address in your area will be perfect. Step 3 - No two people with the same name have the same telephone numbers, so you will also need a new telephone number for use on your new credit file. A friend, relative, voice mail or pager will again work perfectly. Step 4 - With your new Social Security number, new address and new telephone number we will open your new credit file. It will now be totally impossible for any creditor to know anything about your past credit history. Step 5- To guarantee that you will quickly have EXCELLENT CREDIT, we will assist you in instantly adding UNLIMITED positive information to your credit file. This is an unknown way of adding real accounts to your new credit file to give you an Excellent Credit Rating in less than 15 days. As you know, the more positive information on your credit file, the more money banks will lend you. Countless clients of ours have credit lines over $100,000 because of our Proven Credit Advantage Program! When we are finished you will receive a copy of your credit file proving that you now have excellent credit! This will take less than 15 days. You will now be able to easily qualify for ANY credit you apply for! To be on the road to EXCELLENT CREDIT simply send us your name, complete mailing address including zip code and telephone number (optional), along with a check, money order or credit card payable to American Financial Services Inc. for $29.95. All necessary paperwork will be priority mailed to you within 72 hours! $$$$ RISK FREE DOUBLE YOUR MONEY BACK GUARANTEE!! $$$$ My Proven Credit Advantage Program unconditionally guarantees you will qualify for personal loans, business loans, credit cards, auto loans, home loans and any other credit you apply for! If you are not able to qualify for credit after using my program, simply return your Proven Credit Advantage Program along with your denial letter and your $29.95 investment will be refunded DOUBLE! That's a $59.90 refund if this doesn't work like I said! I make this guarantee to you because the Proven Credit Advantage Program has already helped over 37,000 people just like you. I KNOW it works - all you need to do is sign up TODAY! I truly look forward to making you another SATISFIED CLIENT!! ------------------Print & Cut Order Form--------------------- Yes! I deserve excellent credit. Please enroll me in the Proven Credit Advantage Program. The following information is for our records only and does not need to be your new credit file information. *** Please Print Carefully *** NOTE: Orders cannot be processed without complete information. Credit cards must including your signature. NAME____________________________________________________ COMPANY NAME____________________________________________ CURRENT ADDRESS_________________________________________________ CITY, STATE, ZIP________________________________________ PHONE NUMBER____________________________________________ EMAIL ADDRESS___________________________________________ TYPE OF PAYMENT: ______CHECK/MONEY ORDER (Payable to American Financial Services Inc.) Credit Card orders please complete the following: ______VISA ______MASTERCARD _______AMEX_______ CREDIT CARD# __________________________________________ EXPIRATION DATE________________________________________ NAME ON CARD___________________________________________ TOTAL AMOUNT $29.95 DATE:x__________________ SIGNATURE(Required):x_________________________________ ___ Please e-mail me my PROVEN CREDIT ADVANTAGE PROGRAM to the above e-mail address. ___ Please send me my PROVEN CREDIT ADVANTAGE PROGRAM via United States Priority Mail to the above address. For CREDIT CARD ORDERS you may fax this form to us. 1-310-934-6110 1-310-934-6110 1-310-934-6110. For Check by FAX orders: ......................................................... Attach a completed and signed check here. Simply paste check here and FAX. 1-310-934-6110 1-310-934-6110 1-310-934-6110. Or mail to: American Financial Services Inc. Attn: Mike Robbins 311 N. Robertson Blvd. Suite 625 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Dec 10 14:06:45 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09089 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:06:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA05285 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:06:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA05210; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:05:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA02638 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:24:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([207.68.163.154]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07854 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:24:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:24:24 -0800 Received: from 206.54.51.125 by sea1fd.sea1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:24:24 GMT X-Originating-IP: [206.54.51.125] From: "chungwei wu" To: bridge-mib@ietf.org Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:24:24 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2001 18:24:24.0946 (UTC) FILETIME=[E54A5520:01C181A7] Subject: [Bridge-mib] Question of link aggregation groups in Q-Bridge portList Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Hi All I am currently working on the Q-Bridge MIB and Link Aggregation Group task, and have a question about the portList port mapping in the Q-Bridge MIB. I hope you guys could share some of your valuable thoughts on this. Question: Should Q-Bridge portList accommodate both physical port and Link Aggregation Group? When Q-Bridge was finished in 1998, IEEE 802.3AD was not completed yet. The portList in Q-Bridge only defines how the port should be mapped to each bit in the portList, but it does not define the port number assignment schema - how port number is assigned to each port in the switch. The standard leaves this to the vendors. I think the port in Q-Bridge should cover both physical port and logical link aggregation groups. If a switch supports upto 96 physical ports and 32 LAGs, the lenght of portList would be 128 bits. It is interesting that RiverStone RS16000 switch supports Q-Bridge MIB but Cisco Catalyst switches/Extreme black diamond/Foundry BigIron switches do not claim Q-Bridge MIB support and use their own proprietary MIB for VLAN membership management. Any comments are welcome. Best regards, Chungwei Wu _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Dec 10 17:57:31 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14027 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:57:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA14941 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:57:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA14921; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:57:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA14895 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:57:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from riverstonenet.com (mail.riverstonenet.com [63.113.148.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14018 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:57:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from agile.yagosys.com by riverstonenet.com (8.9.3+Sun/SMI-SVR4-Yago) id OAA18813; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:56:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from agile.yagosys.com (agile.yagosys.com [127.0.0.1]) by agile.yagosys.com (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id fBAMurPD001540; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:56:53 -0800 Received: (from mrm@localhost) by agile.yagosys.com (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id fBAMuq4w001539; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:56:52 -0800 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:56:52 -0800 From: Michael MacFaden To: chungwei wu Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Question of link aggregation groups in Q-Bridge portList Message-ID: <20011210145652.F1379@riverstonenet.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from chungwei_c_wu@hotmail.com on Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 10:24:24AM -0800 X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux 2.4.12 Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 10:24:24AM -0800, chungwei wu wrote: >I am currently working on the Q-Bridge MIB and Link Aggregation Group task, >and have a question about the portList port mapping in the Q-Bridge MIB. I >hope you guys could share some of your valuable thoughts on this. > >Question: Should Q-Bridge portList accommodate both physical port and Link >Aggregation Group? I believe it already does. A dot1dBasePortNumber from rfc1493 which is represented with the aggregate object "portList" in 2674 may be abstract or physical. It may or may not be related to an ifIndex which also may or may not be physical. >I think the port in Q-Bridge should cover both physical port and logical >link aggregation groups. If a switch supports upto 96 physical ports and 32 >LAGs, the lenght of portList would be 128 bits. Indeed. And it gets interesting when one actually takes two ports that are currently assigned a dot1dBasePortNum then are removed from the bridge and added to the LAG, thus creating a new dot1dBasePortNum. So the bit length of a PortList can be dynamic.. note: dot1dBasePortTable can be sparse too. Here is our implementation's documentation: http://www.nmops.org/download/rs-snmp-mgmt.pdf page 63. It is an interesting with what to include in the dot1dBasePortTable. A device that supports many different technologies besides bridging may also lead to diffferences in what shows up across vendors or a given vendor's products in the dot1dBasePortTable. If seen that some devices include all ports that can possibly bridge, others include ports that bridging packets, while others include ports that are bridging packets and running a control protocol such as stp... Regards, Mike MacFaden _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Dec 11 13:48:22 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22713 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:48:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA04707 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:48:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA04688; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:48:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA04596 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:45:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([207.68.163.216]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22669 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:45:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:44:42 -0800 Received: from 206.54.51.125 by sea1fd.sea1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:44:42 GMT X-Originating-IP: [206.54.51.125] From: "chungwei wu" To: mrm@riverstonenet.com Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Question of link aggregation groups in Q-Bridge portList Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:44:42 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2001 18:44:42.0588 (UTC) FILETIME=[E57981C0:01C18273] Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Hi Michael, Should the port number in portList be equal to the dot1dBasePort? For example, if the 30th bit is set, how does EMS know which port is set? Look like they need to be the same, otherwise, another mapping is required. Thanks in advance. Regards, Chungwei >From: Michael MacFaden >To: chungwei wu >CC: bridge-mib@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Question of link aggregation groups in Q-Bridge >portList >Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:56:52 -0800 > >On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 10:24:24AM -0800, chungwei wu wrote: > >I am currently working on the Q-Bridge MIB and Link Aggregation Group >task, > >and have a question about the portList port mapping in the Q-Bridge MIB. >I > >hope you guys could share some of your valuable thoughts on this. > > > >Question: Should Q-Bridge portList accommodate both physical port and >Link > >Aggregation Group? > >I believe it already does. A dot1dBasePortNumber from rfc1493 which >is represented with the aggregate object "portList" in 2674 may be abstract >or >physical. It may or may not be related to an ifIndex which also >may or may not be physical. > > >I think the port in Q-Bridge should cover both physical port and logical > >link aggregation groups. If a switch supports upto 96 physical ports and >32 > >LAGs, the lenght of portList would be 128 bits. > >Indeed. And it gets interesting when one actually takes two ports >that are currently assigned a dot1dBasePortNum then are removed >from the bridge and added to the LAG, thus creating a new dot1dBasePortNum. > >So the bit length of a PortList can be dynamic.. >note: dot1dBasePortTable can be sparse too. > >Here is our implementation's documentation: >http://www.nmops.org/download/rs-snmp-mgmt.pdf page 63. > >It is an interesting with what to include in the >dot1dBasePortTable. A device that supports many >different technologies besides bridging may also lead to diffferences >in what shows up across vendors or a given vendor's products >in the dot1dBasePortTable. If seen that some devices include >all ports that can possibly bridge, others include ports that bridging >packets, >while others include ports that are bridging packets and running >a control protocol such as stp... > >Regards, >Mike MacFaden > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Dec 11 18:25:46 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27423 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:25:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA15022 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:25:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA15008; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:25:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA14977 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:25:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from riverstonenet.com (mail.riverstonenet.com [63.113.148.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27405 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:25:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from agile.yagosys.com by riverstonenet.com (8.9.3+Sun/SMI-SVR4-Yago) id PAA09099; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 15:24:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from agile.yagosys.com (agile.yagosys.com [127.0.0.1]) by agile.yagosys.com (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id fBBNOrmo001533; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 15:24:53 -0800 Received: (from mrm@localhost) by agile.yagosys.com (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id fBBNOqgj001532; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 15:24:52 -0800 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 15:24:52 -0800 From: Michael MacFaden To: chungwei wu Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Question of link aggregation groups in Q-Bridge portList Message-ID: <20011211152452.D951@riverstonenet.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from chungwei_c_wu@hotmail.com on Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:44:42AM -0800 X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux 2.4.12 Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:44:42AM -0800, chungwei wu wrote: >Should the port number in portList be equal to the dot1dBasePort? By definition. RFC 2674, section 3.4.2, page 15: Each port is uniquely identified by a port number. A port number has no mandatory relationship to an interface number, but in the simple case a port number will have the same value as the corresponding interface's interface number. Port numbers are in the range (1..dot1dBaseNumPorts). >For example, if the 30th bit is set, how does EMS know which port is set? >Look like they need to be the same, otherwise, another mapping is required. Precisely. EMS will typically read dot1dBasePortTable to track the set of "ports" that make up the 802 transparent bridge. dot1qVlanCurrentTable then maps dot1dBasePortNums to FDB which then is mapped to VID. Next, zero or more instances of Spanning Tree Protocol may be employed. In such cases, the BRIDGE-MIB contains the first instance, and the Entity MIB may be used to track subsequent instances of STP. BTW, same goes for OSPF MIB module. ISIS MIB module however chose to fix their table indexing to natively support multiple instances. The SNMPCONF working group draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-snmpconf-bcp-07.txt has some commentary/examples on the above... Regards, Mike MacFaden _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Dec 12 14:12:52 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16110 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:12:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA07199 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:12:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA07182; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:12:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA07150 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:12:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from riverstonenet.com (mail.riverstonenet.com [63.113.148.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16104 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:12:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from agile.yagosys.com by riverstonenet.com (8.9.3+Sun/SMI-SVR4-Yago) id LAA04874; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:11:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from agile.yagosys.com (agile.yagosys.com [127.0.0.1]) by agile.yagosys.com (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id fBCJBxaC001406; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:11:59 -0800 Received: (from mrm@localhost) by agile.yagosys.com (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id fBCJBx3T001405; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:11:59 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:11:59 -0800 From: Michael MacFaden To: chungwei wu Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Question of link aggregation groups in Q-Bridge portList Message-ID: <20011212111159.B1364@riverstonenet.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from chungwei_c_wu@hotmail.com on Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 10:51:11AM -0800 X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux 2.4.12 Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 10:51:11AM -0800, chungwei wu wrote: >Correct me if I am wrong - Back to the 30th bit set in portList example. The >manager will retrieve port ifIndex from the dot1BasePortTable by locating >the entry indexed by dot1BasePort with value of *30*. Incorrect. A given bridge port is identified by dot1dBasePortNum. An EMS must start with dot1dBasePortTable to learn what "bridge ports" the transparent bridge has. A bridge port does not have to have an ifIndex and the values do not have to be the same. Please see http://www.nmops.org/download/understanding-snmp-counters.pdf page 48. >Then it uses this ifIndex as a key to the ifTable to find more port related information such >as ifType. Since LAG is one of the ifType, the manager knows this port is a >logical LAG rather than a physical one. Easier to use ifXTable ifConnectorPresent to determine if a port is physical or logical (see page 46 of the above document). I will answer your product specific questions separately. Regards, Mike MacFaden _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Dec 12 14:37:50 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16561 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:37:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA08140 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:37:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA08129; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:37:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06661 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:02:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([207.68.163.175]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15913 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:02:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:51:11 -0800 Received: from 206.54.51.125 by sea1fd.sea1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:51:11 GMT X-Originating-IP: [206.54.51.125] From: "chungwei wu" To: mrm@riverstonenet.com Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Question of link aggregation groups in Q-Bridge portList Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:51:11 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2001 18:51:11.0361 (UTC) FILETIME=[F79D4F10:01C1833D] Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Correct me if I am wrong - Back to the 30th bit set in portList example. The manager will retrieve port ifIndex from the dot1BasePortTable by locating the entry indexed by dot1BasePort with value of *30*. Then it uses this ifIndex as a key to the ifTable to find more port related information such as ifType. Since LAG is one of the ifType, the manager knows this port is a logical LAG rather than a physical one. One more question about RS platform SNMP Management: Page 63 in Appendix D: ...The dot1dBasePort index assigned to the smart trunk will start with the value in the 513. These values are arbitrary and device specific. So RS reserves a port number segment for the smart trunks starting from 513. If there is a smart trunk provisioned and is selected, the length of portList will be at least 513. However, RFC2674 page 15: Port numbers are in the range (1..dot1dBaseNumPorts). Then the RS smart trunk port number may not in this range if the number of port capable of bridging is less than 513. I may misunderstand something here. Regards, Chungwei >From: Michael MacFaden >To: chungwei wu >CC: bridge-mib@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Question of link aggregation groups in Q-Bridge >portList >Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 15:24:52 -0800 > >On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:44:42AM -0800, chungwei wu wrote: > >Should the port number in portList be equal to the dot1dBasePort? > >By definition. > >RFC 2674, section 3.4.2, page 15: > Each port is uniquely identified by a port number. A port number has > no mandatory relationship to an interface number, but in the simple > case a port number will have the same value as the corresponding > interface's interface number. Port numbers are in the range > (1..dot1dBaseNumPorts). > > >For example, if the 30th bit is set, how does EMS know which port is set? > >Look like they need to be the same, otherwise, another mapping is >required. > >Precisely. EMS will typically read dot1dBasePortTable to track >the set of "ports" that make up the 802 transparent bridge. > >dot1qVlanCurrentTable then maps dot1dBasePortNums to FDB which >then is mapped to VID. > >Next, zero or more instances of Spanning Tree Protocol may be employed. >In such cases, the BRIDGE-MIB contains the first instance, and >the Entity MIB may be used to track subsequent instances of STP. > >BTW, same goes for OSPF MIB module. ISIS MIB module however chose to fix >their >table indexing to natively support multiple instances. > >The SNMPCONF working group draft: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-snmpconf-bcp-07.txt >has some commentary/examples on the above... > >Regards, >Mike MacFaden _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Dec 12 18:22:53 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20906 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:22:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA21323 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:22:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA21281; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:22:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA18349 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:24:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([207.68.163.118]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20006 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:24:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:24:09 -0800 Received: from 206.54.51.125 by sea1fd.sea1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:24:09 GMT X-Originating-IP: [206.54.51.125] From: "chungwei wu" To: mrm@riverstonenet.com Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Question of link aggregation groups in Q-Bridge portList Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:24:09 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2001 22:24:09.0697 (UTC) FILETIME=[B818A510:01C1835B] Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Please be patient with me. Seem to me there is something missing here. So let me rephrase the scenario in details. When an EMS discovers a dot1qVlanStaticEntry and the 30th bit in dot1qVlanStaticEgressPorts is set to 1. The EMS knows the dot1dBasePortNum 30 is selected for the dot1qVlanStaticEgressPorts. To get this port's ifType in ifIndex, It reads the dot1dBasePortIfIndex from dot1dBasePortTable with dot1dBasePortNum = 30, then uses this index (dot1dBasePortIfIndex) to retrive ifType in ifTable. The dot1dBasePortIfIndex is a foreign key to the ifTable. Any comments? Question for your previous email: >A bridge port does not have to have an ifIndex and the values do not have >to be the same. However, on page 48 of "Understanding Standards Track IETF MIB Modules - SNMP counters tutorial", it said "All ports that bridge have an ifIndex and dot1dBasePortNum". If a port (physical or logical) is capable of bridging, it will have an entry in the dot1dBasePortTable and be assigned a dot1dBasePortNum. This port should also have an entry in the ifTable. Even though its ifIndex may be different during switch reboot. Thanks, Chungwei >From: Michael MacFaden >To: chungwei wu >CC: bridge-mib@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Question of link aggregation groups in Q-Bridge >portList >Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:11:59 -0800 > >On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 10:51:11AM -0800, chungwei wu wrote: > >Correct me if I am wrong - Back to the 30th bit set in portList example. >The > >manager will retrieve port ifIndex from the dot1BasePortTable by locating > >the entry indexed by dot1BasePort with value of *30*. > >Incorrect. > >A given bridge port is identified by dot1dBasePortNum. An EMS >must start with dot1dBasePortTable to learn what "bridge ports" the >transparent bridge has. > >A bridge port does not have to have an ifIndex and >the values do not have to be the same. > >Please see http://www.nmops.org/download/understanding-snmp-counters.pdf >page 48. > > >Then it uses this ifIndex as a key to the ifTable to find more port >related information such > >as ifType. Since LAG is one of the ifType, the manager knows this port is >a > >logical LAG rather than a physical one. > >Easier to use ifXTable ifConnectorPresent to determine if a port is >physical or logical (see page 46 of the above document). > > >I will answer your product specific questions separately. > >Regards, >Mike MacFaden > _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Dec 12 20:49:14 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24237 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:49:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA26470 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:49:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA26454; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:49:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA26425 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:49:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from riverstonenet.com (mail.riverstonenet.com [63.113.148.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24232 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:49:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from agile.yagosys.com by riverstonenet.com (8.9.3+Sun/SMI-SVR4-Yago) id RAA14145; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:48:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from agile.yagosys.com (agile.yagosys.com [127.0.0.1]) by agile.yagosys.com (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id fBD1mYaC001986; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:48:34 -0800 Received: (from mrm@localhost) by agile.yagosys.com (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id fBD1mYBW001985; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:48:34 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:48:34 -0800 From: Michael MacFaden To: chungwei wu Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Question of link aggregation groups in Q-Bridge portList Message-ID: <20011212174834.R1364@riverstonenet.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from chungwei_c_wu@hotmail.com on Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:24:09PM -0800 X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux 2.4.12 Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:24:09PM -0800, chungwei wu wrote: >When an EMS discovers a dot1qVlanStaticEntry and the 30th bit in >dot1qVlanStaticEgressPorts is set to 1. The EMS knows the dot1dBasePortNum >30 is selected for the dot1qVlanStaticEgressPorts. To get this port's ifType >in ifIndex, It reads the dot1dBasePortIfIndex from dot1dBasePortTable with >dot1dBasePortNum = 30, then uses this index (dot1dBasePortIfIndex) to >retrive ifType in ifTable. > >The dot1dBasePortIfIndex is a foreign key to the ifTable. > >Any comments? That is my understanding. Some folks might argue the term "foreign" key doesn't apply precisely. SNMP is not exactly SQL. >Question for your previous email: > >>A bridge port does not have to have an ifIndex and the values do not have >>to be the same. > >However, on page 48 of "Understanding Standards Track IETF MIB Modules - >SNMP counters tutorial", it said "All ports that bridge have an ifIndex and >dot1dBasePortNum". Oops, My error, sorry. I got it confused with dot1dBasePortCircuit. Clearly the object dot1dBasePortIfIndex in rfc1493 doesn't explicitly say an ifIndex of zero is valid I the new rewrite of the BRIDGE-MIB draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-01.txt changed the SYNTAX from INTEGER to InterfaceIndex and not InterfaceIndexOrZero. Mike _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Thu Dec 13 14:05:37 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27098 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:05:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA13637 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:05:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA13552; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:03:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA10147 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:16:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from amt-exc1.aprisma.com (hidden-user@mail.aprisma.com [64.223.139.20]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25826 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:16:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by amt-exc1.aprisma.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:20:36 -0500 Message-ID: <1F5C0728BA9CD51199E800508B9A1CBA014F59@amt-exc2.aprisma.com> From: "Buia, Christopher" To: "'bridge-mib@ietf.org'" Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:11:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Bridge-mib] dot1dStpTopChanges Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Hello Bridge-MIB WG, I have a relatively simple question. If someone could answer it, it would be appreciated. What exactly constitutes a "topology change" such that the dot1dStpTopChanges object would be updated? A list of examples would be wonderful. The reason I ask is this... Given the following layer 2 topology: Router | | | | Bridge A ---------- Bridge B | | | | | Bridge C ---------- Bridge D | | | | | Bridge E The root bridge is Bridge B, and there are no other connections between the bridges. When the link between Bridge A and Bridge C goes down, the dot1dStpTopChanges object is incremented on the root bridge B. However, when the same link comes back up, the dot1dStpTopChanges on the root bridge is not incremented again. Basically, I'm asking if the dot1dStpTopChanges object on the root bridge can be relied upon to accurately determine when a spanning tree topology change had occurred (i.e. a link between two bridges has gone up or down). Many thanks in advance. Chris Christopher A. Buia Senior Software Engineer SPECTRUM Core Services Aprisma Management Technologies 603-334-2928 www.aprisma.com _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Thu Dec 13 18:19:23 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01622 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:19:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA26061 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:19:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA26052; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:19:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA26017 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:19:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from riverstonenet.com (mail.riverstonenet.com [63.113.148.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01612 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:19:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from agile.yagosys.com by riverstonenet.com (8.9.3+Sun/SMI-SVR4-Yago) id PAA12479; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:18:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from agile.yagosys.com (agile.yagosys.com [127.0.0.1]) by agile.yagosys.com (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id fBDNId6d002160; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:18:39 -0800 Received: (from mrm@localhost) by agile.yagosys.com (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id fBDNIcVi002159; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:18:38 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:18:38 -0800 From: Michael MacFaden To: "Buia, Christopher" Cc: "'bridge-mib@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] dot1dStpTopChanges Message-ID: <20011213151838.C1163@riverstonenet.com> References: <1F5C0728BA9CD51199E800508B9A1CBA014F59@amt-exc2.aprisma.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1F5C0728BA9CD51199E800508B9A1CBA014F59@amt-exc2.aprisma.com>; from cbuia@aprisma.com on Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:11:28PM -0500 X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux 2.4.12 Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:11:28PM -0500, Buia, Christopher wrote: >What exactly constitutes a "topology change" such that the dot1dStpTopChanges >object would be updated? In general some bridge configuration changes or a link-state change for a link that has not disabled Change Detection (8.5.5.10), per 802.1D spec page 63. dot1dStpTopChanges OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The total number of topology changes detected by this bridge since the management entity was last reset or initialized." REFERENCE "IEEE 802.1D-1990: Section 6.8.1.1.3" ::= { dot1dStp 4 } Unfortunately the REFERENCE clause has not been fixed in the new draft to point to the spec at www.ieee.org file name named 802.1D-1998.pdf. I found section 8.3 a good starting place. Esp Sec 8.3.5: The Spanning Tree Algorithm and Protocol provide procedures for a Bridge that detects a change in active topology to notify the Root of the change reliably, and for the Root subsequently to communicate the change to all the Bridges. The Bridges then use a short value to age out dynamic entries in the Fitering Database for period. >[snip]can be relied upon to accurately determine when a spanning tree topology >change had occurred (i.e. a link between two bridges has gone up or down). I don't think you can do that. Rapid Spanning Tree protocol won't send a TCN from a non-root bridge to the root bridge when a link is removed. Regards, Mike MacFaden _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@ns.ietf.org Thu Dec 13 20:32:50 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA03464 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:32:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA01749 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:32:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA01725; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:32:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA01696 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:32:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from columba.eur.3com.com (columba.EUR.3Com.COM [161.71.169.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA03446 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:31:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from toucana.eur.3com.com (toucana.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.50]) by columba.eur.3com.com with ESMTP id fBE1Xrn14872; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:33:53 GMT Received: from notesmta.eur.3com.com (eurmta1.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.206]) by toucana.eur.3com.com with SMTP id fBE1VSU16684; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:31:28 GMT Received: by notesmta.eur.3com.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 80256B22.00093A63 ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:40:47 +0000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM From: "Les Bell" To: bwijnen@lucent.com cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Message-ID: <80256B22.000938AC.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:28:07 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Bridge-mib] bridgemib meeting at ietf52 - summary Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org The Bridge-MIB WG met at the 52nd IETF meeting in Salt Lake City. The WG discussed the changes in the latest releases, and the open issues in the SMIv2 Bridge MIB, SMIv2 Source Routing MIB, and RSTP and VLAN extensions to the Bridge MIB. The WG proposes the following: * For the SMIv2 Source Routing MIB - Take this to WG Last Call and submit it to the IESG in February 2002. The WG would like the advice of the Area Director on whether this should be issued as a Draft Standard, or Informational, or Historic. * For the SMIv2 Bridge MIB - Wait for feedback from the InterWorking Labs Test Summit and update the draft in February. Submit it to the IESG after the March 2002 IETF meeting. * For the RSTP and VLAN extensions to the Bridge MIB - Move the U-BRIDGE-MIB and V-BRIDGE-MIB to be included in an update to RFC 2674. Issue an updated draft with just the RSTP MIB and submit this to the IESG after the March 2002 IETF meeting. * Issue a new draft updating RFC 2674 to include the U-BRIDGE-MIB and V-BRIDGE-MIB extensions. Submit this to the IESG to be recycled as a Proposed Standard after the July 2002 IETF meeting. Les... _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@ns.ietf.org Mon Dec 17 17:41:15 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20854 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:41:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA21721 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA21707; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:41:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA21677 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:41:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (hoemail1.lucent.com [192.11.226.161]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20834 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:40:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id fBHMeVX05516 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:40:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 23:40:30 +0100 Message-ID: <2413FED0DFE6D111B3F90008C7FA61FB0E264323@nl0006exch002u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: Les Bell Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] bridgemib meeting at ietf52 - summary Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 23:40:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org In your summary: > > * For the SMIv2 Source Routing MIB - Take this to WG Last > Call and submit it to the IESG in February 2002. > The WG would like the advice of the Area Director > on whether this should be issued as a Draft Standard, > or Informational, or Historic. Mmm... explain to me why the 3 choices. Can you not get any implementation/interoperability reports? Is this obsolete technology? What does the WG think? The WG charter that we agreed upon was that you would try to elevate to Draft Standard. So why did this question come up? Bert p.s. Les, it is possible that you mentioned it to me... but then so many people tell me things during an IETF. I don't recall. _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Dec 19 05:55:47 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA26766 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:55:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id FAA08531 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:55:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA08499; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:54:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA08468 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:54:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from columba.eur.3com.com (columba.EUR.3Com.COM [161.71.169.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA26741 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:54:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from toucana.eur.3com.com (toucana.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.50]) by columba.eur.3com.com with ESMTP id fBJAuKn27336; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:56:20 GMT Received: from notesmta.eur.3com.com (eurmta1.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.206]) by toucana.eur.3com.com with SMTP id fBJArxU27916; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:53:59 GMT Received: by notesmta.eur.3com.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 80256B27.003CBCEC ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:03:25 +0000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM From: "Les Bell" To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Message-ID: <80256B27.003CBBCB.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:50:34 +0000 Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] bridgemib meeting at ietf52 - summary Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Hi Bert, We do not expect to get any implementation reports for the Source Routing MIB, therefore it is unlikely to be able to progress this to Draft Standard. I did not discuss this with you this time around, it was just a suggestion raised in the meeting, I did not take a note of who suggested it. It was suggested that there is little interest in further Token Ring developments, therefore it may be better to recycle this as Informational, or Historic, rather than Proposed. The point is that as the traditional Token Ring vendors have already stopped further development of this technology, there is little point in progressing it on the Standards Track. There was no contention about this, it was just that the WG was unsure about the correct way to proceed with this work. It is certainly easiest to recycle this as a Proposed Standard, leaving the status unchanged from the current SMIv1 version of this MIB in RFC 1525. The WG just wanted to seek your advice on this. Of course, those who did not attend the meeting have the opportunity to express their views on the mailing list. Les... "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" on 17/12/2001 22:40:29 Sent by: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: Les Bell/GB/3Com cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] bridgemib meeting at ietf52 - summary In your summary: > > * For the SMIv2 Source Routing MIB - Take this to WG Last > Call and submit it to the IESG in February 2002. > The WG would like the advice of the Area Director > on whether this should be issued as a Draft Standard, > or Informational, or Historic. Mmm... explain to me why the 3 choices. Can you not get any implementation/interoperability reports? Is this obsolete technology? What does the WG think? The WG charter that we agreed upon was that you would try to elevate to Draft Standard. So why did this question come up? Bert p.s. Les, it is possible that you mentioned it to me... but then so many people tell me things during an IETF. I don't recall. _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Dec 19 10:52:10 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00125 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:52:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA17588 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:52:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17572; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:52:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17541 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:52:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from columba.eur.3com.com (columba.EUR.3Com.COM [161.71.169.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00100 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:52:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from toucana.eur.3com.com (toucana.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.50]) by columba.eur.3com.com with ESMTP id fBJFrtn01913 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:53:55 GMT Received: from notesmta.eur.3com.com (eurmta1.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.206]) by toucana.eur.3com.com with SMTP id fBJFpZU01489 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:51:35 GMT Received: by notesmta.eur.3com.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 80256B27.0057F9F0 ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:00:56 +0000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM From: "Les Bell" To: bridge-mib@ietf.org Message-ID: <80256B27.0057F7F7.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:48:03 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Bridge-mib] 52nd IETF - BridgeMIB WG minutes - preliminary Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Here are the draft minutes of the BridgeMIB WG meeting in Salt Lake City last week. Please Let me know by Monday 24 Dec if there are any issues with the minutes. 52nd IETF Salt Lake City, UT December 2001 BridgeMIB WG minutes KC Norseth volunteered to take the minutes, Les Bell took minutes while KC was presenting. A call was made for Implementation Reports from all vendors. Email the reports to the mailing list, the chair (Les Bell), or the Area Director (Bert Wijnen). SMIv2 Bridge MIB This has missed the original September 2001 milestone. Some objects have changed from read-only (dot1dTpFdbAddress, dot1dBasePort) or read-create (dot1dStaticAddress, dot1dstaticReceivePort) to not-accessible, as they are index objects. This is likely to break current implementations and applications, therefore, they will be restored to their original access permissions. This is permitted according to RFC 2578, section 7.7. dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo needs to be bounded. The required size is 512 octets, to support up to 4096 ports. This exceeds minimum required SNMP packet size, therefore, this needs to be noted in the DESCRIPTION of this object. See RFC 2578 section 7.1 for details on size limitations. The use of dot1dStpEnable is reportedly inconsistently implemented. Therefore this requires clarification. Some vendors use this to disable STP on a port. The consensus was to wait until after InterWorking Labs Test Summit in January 2002, to see if more feedback results from this. SMIv2 Source Routing MIB No issues were raised. It is acceptable to recycle this as a Proposed Standard in this case, although it was suggested that Informational or Historic may be appropriate document states. It was decided that it would be best for the Area Director to decide on the appropriate document status. RSTP-MIB, U-BRIDGE-MIB, V-BRIDGE-MIB The consensus at the meeting was that U-BRIDGE-MIB and V-BRIDGE-MIB should be added to an update of RFC 2674. The U-BRIDGE-MIB objects should be incorporated into the existing Q-BRIDGE-MIB. V-BRIDGE-MIB should be a separate MIB module inthis document. No objections to this proposal have been received on the mailing list since it was proposed after the London IETF in August. Vivian Ngai volunteered to become the editor for this revision of RFC 2674. This will mean that the revised document will have to be re-cycled at Proposed status. A number of items have been highlighted as being deliberately omitted from RFC 2674, it was the consensus of the room to leave these out of the revised MIBs. This includes the GMRP and GVRP Notifications that were added after the London IETF, so these will be removed again. The required SYNTAX changes to dot1dPortPathCost mean that this object should be deprecated and a new object created to replace it. The suggestion raised on the mailing list, to include counters for Config, TCN and RSTP BPDUs received on each port, Port Role and Legacy Neighbour information was agreed by those in the room. These should be added to the next revision of the document. IEEE 802.1X MIB The IEEE 802.1 WG approved publication of this MIB as an Informational RFC. Permission has been requested from the IEEE to do this. This is just waiting for the copyright release from IEEE. KC Norseth has prepared an Internet-Draft for publication of this MIB. This will be submitted to IETF when permission is granted by IEEE. Dan Romascanu volunteered to bring up any issues that people have with the 802.1X MIB at the next IEEE 802.1 meeting in Raleigh, NC, January 14-18 - meeting details can be found at http://www.ieee802.org/3/interims/index.html You can raise these issues on the bridge-mib@ietf.org mailing list. IEEE 802.1s MIB The consensus in the room was that this is not yet stable enough for a MIB to be developed. This should not be added to the WG Charter at this time. Goals & Milestones RFC 1525 Source Routing MIB update - to be submitted to IESG by February 2002. RFC 1493 Bridge MIB update - to be submitted to IESG after the March 2002 meeting. RFC 2674 Bridge MIB Extensions update - to be submitted to IESG after the July 2002 meeting. Any Other Business InterWorking Labs are holding a Bridge MIB and Ethernet Interfaces MIB Test Summit January 28-30, 2002. They are looking for input on test scenarios and participants for this event. Feedback from this event may be useful for the Implementation Reports required for advancing these standards. Slides are available for the presentations from K.C. Norseth (Bridge MIB, 802.1X MIB) & Vivian Ngai (RSTP-MIB, U-BRIDGE-MIB, V-BRIDGE-MIB) at http://www.norseth.org/ietf/bridgemib Les Bell _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Thu Dec 20 06:28:31 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05773 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:28:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id GAA04289 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:28:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA04276; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:28:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA04244 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:28:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from hoemail2.firewall.lucent.com (hoemail2.lucent.com [192.11.226.163]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05762 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:28:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by hoemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id fBKBRt425614 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:27:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:27:54 +0100 Message-ID: <2413FED0DFE6D111B3F90008C7FA61FB0E264A0B@nl0006exch002u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: Les Bell Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] bridgemib meeting at ietf52 - summary Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:27:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Les, thanks for the clarification. Based on your report, we could leave RFC1525 just as is untill it completely dies together with other TokenRing related RFCs. At that time we could re-classify them all to historic in one big swoop. But, since you basically have already done the work to convert the MIB from SMIv1 to SMIv2, I would suggest that it makes sense to republish, just for anyone who wants to monitor/manage old devices. To me, it is acceptable to just recycle this doc at PS. If the WG feels that they would rather make it informational (while still obsoleting RFC1525) then that is fine. A small section should then be added to explain why we do change from stds track to informational. If we want to make it historic, then that is fine with me too, but in that case, the doc would be an inforamtional that just explains why we reclassify to historic. We would not produce the SMIv2 version of the mib. Pls try to gauge consensus for this on the WG list. It is a WG decision as to what they want to do with it. In all cases, we will do an IETF wide last call, cause we either have a new doc at PS or we remove a doc from stds track. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Les Bell [mailto:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:51 AM > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] bridgemib meeting at ietf52 - summary > > > > > Hi Bert, > > We do not expect to get any implementation reports for the > Source Routing MIB, > therefore it is unlikely to be able to progress this to Draft > Standard. I did > not discuss this with you this time around, it was just a > suggestion raised in > the meeting, I did not take a note of who suggested it. > > It was suggested that there is little interest in further Token Ring > developments, therefore it may be better to recycle this as > Informational, or > Historic, rather than Proposed. The point is that as the > traditional Token Ring > vendors have already stopped further development of this > technology, there is > little point in progressing it on the Standards Track. There > was no contention > about this, it was just that the WG was unsure about the > correct way to proceed > with this work. > > It is certainly easiest to recycle this as a Proposed > Standard, leaving the > status unchanged from the current SMIv1 version of this MIB > in RFC 1525. The WG > just wanted to seek your advice on this. Of course, those > who did not attend > the meeting have the opportunity to express their views on > the mailing list. > > Les... > > > > > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" on 17/12/2001 22:40:29 > > Sent by: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" > > > To: Les Bell/GB/3Com > cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] bridgemib meeting at ietf52 - summary > > > > > In your summary: > > > > * For the SMIv2 Source Routing MIB - Take this to WG Last > > Call and submit it to the IESG in February 2002. > > The WG would like the advice of the Area Director > > on whether this should be issued as a Draft Standard, > > or Informational, or Historic. > > Mmm... explain to me why the 3 choices. > Can you not get any implementation/interoperability reports? > Is this obsolete technology? What does the WG think? > > The WG charter that we agreed upon was that you would try to elevate > to Draft Standard. So why did this question come up? > > Bert > p.s. Les, it is possible that you mentioned it to me... but then > so many people tell me things during an IETF. I don't recall. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge-mib mailing list > Bridge-mib@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib > _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Thu Dec 20 15:20:28 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19273 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 15:20:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA24743 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 15:20:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24731; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 15:20:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24698 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 15:20:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from snowstorm.mail.pipex.net (snowstorm.mail.pipex.net [158.43.192.97]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA19268 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 15:20:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 20803 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2001 20:20:20 -0000 Received: from userao35.uk.uudial.com (HELO tom3) (62.188.135.151) by smtp-5.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 2001 20:20:20 -0000 Message-ID: <013201c2a865$2a6328a0$9787bc3e@tom3> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" From: "Tom Petch" To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" , "Les Bell" Cc: Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] bridgemib meeting at ietf52 - summary Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:17:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would prefer PS; there is a lot of TRN that will be used for a long time yet! Tom Petch, Network Consultant nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From txbtm@care2.com Sun Dec 23 19:55:10 2001 Received: from sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.163.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29402 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:55:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com [171.69.17.42]) by sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id fBO0KZY00457 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 16:20:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from proxy1.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBO0KYd02934 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 16:20:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from evrazmet.da.ru ([217.106.67.140]) by proxy1.cisco.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBO0KEd26926 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 16:20:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from ghghjuy [216.126.163.121] by evrazmet.da.ru with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.04) id A82C2340024; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:53:32 +0300 From: "Brian Regal" Subject: All You Need #5D86 To: join28d@cisco.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 5.0 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 13:42:17 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200112232154189.SM01296@ghghjuy> This is a MIME Message ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0" ------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ***** This is an HTML Message ! ***** ------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Executive Guild Membership ApplicationResponse-O-Matic Form

Dear Candidate,=A0

You have been selected as a potential candidate for a free listing in=A0<= br> the 2002 Edition of the International Executive Guild Registry=2E=A0
=
Please accept our congratulations for this coveted honor=2E=A0

As this edition is so important in view of the new millennium, the=A0
= International Executive Guild Registry will be published in two different= =A0
formats; the searchable CD-ROM and the Online Registry=2E=A0

Since inclusion can be considered recognition of your career position=A0<= br> and professionalism, each candidate is evaluated in keeping with high=A0<= br> standards of individual achievement=2E In light of this, the Internationa= l Executive
Guild thinks that you may make an interesting biographical subject=2E=A0<= br>
We look forward to your inclusion and appearance in the International=A0<= br> Executive Guild's Registry=2E Best wishes for your continued success=2E=A0=

International Executive Guild=A0
Listing Dept=2E=A0

If you wish to be removed from our list, please submit your request
at the bottom of this email=2E

International Executive Guild
Registration Form
(US and Canada Only)
Please fill out this form if you would like to be included on The International Executive Guild, For accuracy and publication purposes, please complete and send this form at the earliest opportunity=2E There is no charge or obligation to be listed on The International Executive Guild=2E
Your Name
Your Company
Title
Address
City
State or Province
Country
ZIP/Postal Code
Day Time Telephone
Home Phone
 (Not To Be Published)
Email

TO HELP US IN CONSIDERING YOUR APPLICATION, PLEASE TELL US A LITTLE ABOUT YOURSELF=2E=2E=2E
Your Business
(Financial Svcs, Banking, Computer Hardware, Software, Professional Svcs, Chemicals, Apparel, Aerospace, Food, Government, Utility, etc=2E)
Type of Organization
(M= fg, Dist/Wholesaler, Retailer, Law Firm,
Investment Bank, Commercial Bank, University,
Financial Consultants, Ad Agency, Contractor, Broker, etc=2E)
Your Business Expertise
(Corp=2EMgmt, Marketing, Civil Engineering,
Tax Law, Nuclear Physics, Database Development, Operations, Pathologist, Mortgage Banking, etc=2E)
Major Product Line
(Integrated Circuits, Commercial Aircraft, Adhesives, Cosmetics, Plastic Components, Snack Foods, etc=2E)


Note: Submitting this form= will be made by email, not by use of  www=2E  Confirmation of its de= livery is made by browsing your outgoing mail=2E

Thank you for filling in this form, we will contact you with more information=2E

List Removal
Click Here
------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0-- ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0-- From helpingfamilies@lycos.com Mon Dec 24 17:55:36 2001 Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com [171.71.163.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25530 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 17:55:36 -0500 (EST) From: helpingfamilies@lycos.com Received: from sj-msg-av-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-1.cisco.com [171.69.11.130]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id fBOMPnx12943 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:25:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from proxy3.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-1.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBOMPnv11052 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:25:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from AmericasLender.com (216-127-234-141.focaldata.net [216.127.234.141] (may be forged)) by proxy3.cisco.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id fBOMQew18296 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:26:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200112242226.fBOMQew18296@proxy3.cisco.com> To: bridge-mib@external.cisco.com Subject: 6.25% Fixed\ Refinance before rates Go Up! 23715 Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:32:38 -0800 X-Sender: helpingfamilies@lycos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Loan Application

Refinance While Rates Last!

6.25%  Fixed

  • Payoff Debt or Home Improvement
  • Bad Credit Ok
  • Cash Out For Any Reason
     
    Clearly, refinancing is the smart solution for those who want the financial flexibility to use their equity to pay off debt or make improvements in life.

     

    • Loan Application (Fields Marked with * are required)
    Prefix:               Name:        *
    Middle Name:   Last Name: *
    Address  * City:          *
    State    * Zip Code:    *
    Home Phone:    Day Phone:  *
    Fax:               E-Mail:        *
    Length At Present Address:
    * Years  Months     		 Amount Owed on 1st / % Rate:   *  /  %*
    Amount Owed on 2nd / % Rate:   /   % Loan Type 1St / Loan Type 2nd:  *   / 
    Home Value:     * Yearly Income:    *
    Length of Current Employment:          *Years    *Months Are You Self Employed? 
    Credit Rating: Amount Requested: *
    What is the purpose of the loan?
                                Realtor           
    c 2001, An independently owned and operated member of
    The Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc


    To be removed from this one time mailing, simply forward this message to helpingfamilies@lycos.com

    From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Dec 25 05:42:16 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA19466 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:42:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id FAA12577 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:42:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA12563; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:42:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA12529 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:41:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from apollo.nbase.co.il (apollo.nbase.co.il [194.90.137.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA19459 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:41:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from Alexr ([194.90.136.135]) by apollo.nbase.co.il (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-44418U200L2S100) with SMTP id AAA337 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 12:43:13 +0200 Reply-To: From: alexr@nbase.co.il (Alex Ruzin) To: Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 12:43:38 +0200 Message-ID: <000801c18d31$03b82c00$87885ac2@Alexr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Bridge-mib] Q: dot1dTpAgingTime in RFC1493 ? Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, In RFC1493 there is no option to disable aging process at all. In our products we have to use one of two *bad* methods: 1. *Edit* the standard MIB to avoid interval "range validity" of dot1dTpAgingTime: dot1dTpAgingTime OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER -- (10..1000000) [the range is commented out] ACCESS read-write STATUS mandatory DESCRIPTION "The timeout period in seconds for aging out dynamically learned forwarding information. 802.1D-1990 recommends a default of 300 seconds. The value 0 means mode 'aging out is disabled'." REFERENCE "IEEE 802.1D-1990: Section 6.7.1.1.3" ::= { dot1dTp 2 } The value '0' of the object means the mode "aging is disabled" 2. Use our *private* MIB for this purpose. Question: Is WG going to solve this problem in the standard MIB ? Or: is there another method (may in another MIB) ? Or: does WG think, that aging process has not to be disabled ? As example, we propose to add a new special object, something like this: dot1dTpAgingEnabled OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TruthValue ACCESS read-write STATUS mandatory DESCRIPTION "The value true(1) means 'aging mode is enabled'. The value false(2) means 'aging mode is disabled'" REFERENCE "IEEE 802.1D-1990: Section 6.7.1.1.3" ::= { dot1dTp 5 } Best regards, Alex _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From remove@eif.net Mon Dec 31 14:31:41 2001 Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com [171.71.163.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06292 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:31:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com [171.69.17.42]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id fBVIq2v04868 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:52:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from proxy1.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBVIq1818593 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:52:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from eif.net ([212.161.14.187]) by proxy1.cisco.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id fBVIph509284 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:51:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200112311851.fBVIph509284@proxy1.cisco.com> From: "HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM EIF" To: Subject: NEW YEAR EIF OFFER + CHASE OFFER Sender: "HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM EIF" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 18:48:15 -0800 X-Priority: 1 (Highest) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Eif Security Solutions and Rapid Traffic Search Optimization

    WISHING YOU ALL A VERY HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR!

    FREE PC FIREWALL AND ANTIVIRUS TO ALL THE HUMAN BEINGS CONTACTING US!

    THANKS

    I TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE YOU THE MESSAGE FOR THE END OF THE YEAR OF THE PRESIDENT:

    'THE ALMOST BEST FUTURE CAN BE MADE BETTER' G CRASTI PRESIDENT HYKSOS GROUP

    Rob Tel + 39 32 00 25 80 44

    Fax + 1 212 656 1546

    Rob Photo

    www.eif.net

    Apply Now for the Chase Platinum Credit Card iCard Holiday Rewards_468 Shop Safely_468X60 Outtatown 468x60 Platinum Lollipops 468x60

    NOTE: If you have asked to be removed from our mailing list, and are continuing to receive our emails, please send us the names of any older or alias email addresses. These sometimes are forwarded to the new mail address and we must delete these older or alias addresses from our list in order to stop mail from reaching your current address. We apologize for any inconvenience and appreciate your continued patience and cooperation.Your address is Opt in under G law.

    If you require I will send you $ 6 + apologies having your address.

    remove@eif.net