Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 04:28:15PM +0100, Bert Wijnen (IETF):
> So I had been in discussion with Jeff in order to see
> if we could get the BGP4-mibv2 module in good shape.
>
> Below is out discussion.
>
> Those who are interested in this MIB module at all
> may want to take a look to make sure they agree with
> the changes being proposed.
>
> The most modules we're discussion are:
>
> - drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-13.txt
> - drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-tc-mib-03.txt
>
> In fact I had below discussion on bgp4-mibv2-12.txt,
> which resulted in revision 13.
I'm disappointed in the speed at which this draft has progressed. I do
understand that mibs are often partially gated for/by trial implementation
(or so I've been told), but I have the impression its pace is wholly due to
the complexity of the proposed mib. I also feel that there is a fair
amount of fluff that we find unnecessary for network management and would
be better suited to a separate mib; the RIBs, for example. bgp4-mibv2
("lite"), bgp4-ribs, etc; or some approach that would allow the necessities
of peer state, nlri counts, and the like to progress without the fluff and
thus be more timely.
As such, I am unsure why its been brought to the sidr list, but I am hoping
that no attempt will be made to add SIDR-related stuff to this mib and
further delay adoption.
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
