has ISIS MIB been standardized ?

Dear Sir,

I am knew in this list, so I apologize for any beginneers question.

I took a look at IETF ISIS Workgroup and figure out that the ISIS MIB is still a draft document. I also
understand that this document will become a standard only if there is an commercial implemmentation of
that RFC. So, Does anybody know what are current  ISIS MIB commercial implementations ? 

If this kind of question is not proper for this list, please let me know or answer directly to my e-maill.

Thank you in advance,
Regards, 

Lavoisier J.L.Farias 
Engenheiro de Sistemas de Telecomunicações
CPqD Telecom & IT Solutions 
Telefone : +55-19-3705-5758 / Fax +55-19-3705-663         
lfarias <at> cpqd.com.br                                
www.cpqd.com.br

Re: ISIS graceful restart...

On Apr 21, 2004, at 8:26 AM, Les Ginsberg wrote:
> Here is the change proposed by Mike and myself to address this issue:
>
> Section 3.3.1 "Adjacency reacquisition during restart", page 10, para 
> 2:
>
> Current text:
> "Once the timer T3 has expired or been cancelled, subsequent IIHs 
> are..."
>
> Revised text:
> "Once the timer T1 has been cancelled, subsequent IIHs are ..."

[...]

> If this revision is acceptable, Alex has agreed to try to get this 
> into the
> doc before the RFC is published.

Given I've reviewed the change and the WG has had time to review it as 
well, I've sent mail to Alex requesting that this change be made, and 
that the draft continue forward towards RFC.

Chris.

>     Les

RE: ISIS graceful restart...

Also, there are some incorrect cross references to sections 4.2.1 and 4.4 on
page 10/11. These should be 3.2.1 and 3.4 respectively. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Hopps [mailto:chopps <at> procket.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 2:31 PM
To: Les Ginsberg
Cc: Jeelani Syed; David Ward; <isis-wg <at> ietf.org>; mike shand
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] ISIS graceful restart...

On Apr 21, 2004, at 8:26 AM, Les Ginsberg wrote:
> Here is the change proposed by Mike and myself to address this issue:
>
> Section 3.3.1 "Adjacency reacquisition during restart", page 10, para 
> 2:
>
> Current text:
> "Once the timer T3 has expired or been cancelled, subsequent IIHs 
> are..."
>
> Revised text:
> "Once the timer T1 has been cancelled, subsequent IIHs are ..."

[...]

> If this revision is acceptable, Alex has agreed to try to get this 
> into the
> doc before the RFC is published.

Mib Updates

I have sent version 14 of the ISIS MIB to the draft editors.  
The change list from the document is included below.

At this point, I think we have the major functionality in place.  The
Notifications have been through a rev or two, and are starting to settle
down.  I hope that we can wrap things up and put it up for MIB doctor
review.  

If you have functionality that you do not think is represented, this would
be a good time to speak up.  

- jeff parker

--  Changes in version 14
--
--      Set DEFVAL for isisCirc3WayEnabled to true
--      Revised description for isisPacketCountIIHello
--      Removed isisSysStatMaxAreaAddrMismatches as
--          duplicating isisCircMaxAreaAddrMismatches
--      Replaced isisManAreaAddrExistState with isisManAreaAddr
--          in isisManualAddressDrops
--      Drop isisSysLevelIndex in isisDatabaseOverload
--      Drop restriction from isisCircIndex - SYNTAX Integer32
(1..2000000000)
--      Change syntax of FullMetric to SYNTAX Unsigned32
--      Corrections to description of isisSysMaxLSPGenInt, isisSysMaxAge
--      Change access levels of isisSysInstance and isisSysLevelIndex
--      Fix references for isisCircPassiveCircuit, isisCircLevelCSNPInterval
--      Fix description of isisISAdjIndex
--      Replace level 1 with L2, level 2 with L2

RE: has ISIS MIB been standardized ?

> I took a look at IETF ISIS Workgroup and figure out that the 
> ISIS MIB is still a draft document. I also understand that 
> this document will become a standard only if there is an 
> commercial implemmentation of that RFC. So, Does anybody know 
> what are current  ISIS MIB commercial implementations ? 
> 
> If this kind of question is not proper for this list, please 
> let me know or answer directly to my e-maill.
> 
> Thank you in advance,
> Regards, 
> 
> Lavoisier J.L.Farias 

Dear Mr. Lavoisier - 

There are still a few more hoops we need to jump through before we need to
call for implementations.  I believe that the next step is to get a review
from the Mib Literati.  

There are a number of people who have sent me mail publicly and privately
with MIB questions.  I assume that they are working to some extent on
implementations of the MIB.  Others are waiting for the magic moment when
they think the specification is cooked to implement.

Alas, it is up to them to respond to your query.  It would be a breach for
me to mention their names or affiliations publicly or privately.  

- jeff parker 

RE: Mib Updates

Hi Jeff,

Some implementations support a configurable SPF interval. Is there a reason
why this is not included in the MIB?

thanks
Vijay

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Parker [mailto:jparker <at> axiowave.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 4:52 PM
To: ISIS-WG (E-mail)
Subject: [Isis-wg] Mib Updates

I have sent version 14 of the ISIS MIB to the draft editors.  
The change list from the document is included below.

At this point, I think we have the major functionality in place.  The
Notifications have been through a rev or two, and are starting to settle
down.  I hope that we can wrap things up and put it up for MIB doctor
review.  

If you have functionality that you do not think is represented, this would
be a good time to speak up.  

- jeff parker

--  Changes in version 14
--
--      Set DEFVAL for isisCirc3WayEnabled to true

RE: ISIS graceful restart...

At 04:13 PM 5/4/2004 -0400, Krishnan, Vijay G. wrote:

>Also, there are some incorrect cross references to sections 4.2.1 and 4.4 on
>page 10/11. These should be 3.2.1 and 3.4 respectively.
>

Vijay -

Thanx for catching these.
Sigh...

    Les

RE: Mib Updates

> > If you have functionality that you do not think
> > is represented...  speak up.  

> Some implementations support a configurable SPF 
> interval....
>
> Vijay

Vijay -
	Indeed, and some have several configurable
SPF intervals.  
	I could have sworn that we did as well.  
Would a per level interval with text like

	"Minimal time between consecutive SPF runs
	 at this level."

do the trick for you?  

- jeff parker

RE: Mib Updates

RE: Mib Updates

OK, that should be....
-----------------------
Jeff, Vijay,

And if an implementation does not support per-level SPF
intervals, which one should be set?

My other comment is that some vendors support an inter-SPF
interval as well as an initial SPF holddown. And let's not
forget others who implement the inter-SFP interval with an
exponential backoff. 

In other words, I don't know how simple this will be to make
everyone happy. This might be best left to the implementors
in their proprietary MIBs.

I think the ISIS MIB should be better left to those items
that are defined in the ITU or the IETF documents and I do
not recall seeing this defined in any of those documents.

My 2 cents,
Don

--- On Tue 05/04, Jeff Parker < jparker <at> axiowave.com > wrote:From: Jeff Parker [mailto:
jparker <at> axiowave.com]To: Vijay.G.Krishnan <at> marconi.com, isis-wg <at> ietf.orgDate: Tue, 4 May 2004
18:27:53 -0400Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Mib Updates
> > If you have functionality that you do not think
> > is represented... speak up.

> Some implementations support a configurable SPF
> interval....
>
> Vijay

Vijay -
Indeed, and some have several configurable
SPF intervals.
I could have sworn that we did as well.
Would a per level interval with text like

"Minimal time between consecutive SPF runs
at this level."

do the trick for you?

- jeff parker

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!