Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

GMPLS MIBs draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-02.txt Tom Nadeau

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "GMPLS MIBs draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-02.txt Tom Nadeau"— Presentation transcript:

1 GMPLS MIBs draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-02.txt Tom Nadeau (tnadeau@cisco.com) tnadeau@cisco.com Cheenu Srinivasan (cheenu@bloomberg.net) Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk) adrian@olddog.co.uk Tim Hall (timhall@dataconnection.com) Ed Harrison (ed.harrison@dataconnection.com)

2 Recent Work MPLS MIBs nearly completed in Vienna, at RFC editor desk any day now. No longer blocking GMPLS MIBs. MPLS MIBs nearly completed in Vienna, at RFC editor desk any day now. No longer blocking GMPLS MIBs. Work resumed on GMPLS MIBs in July Work resumed on GMPLS MIBs in July Revision 01 in August Revision 01 in August Brought into line with MPLS MIBs (Mainly new indexing) Brought into line with MPLS MIBs (Mainly new indexing) Cleaned up drafts Cleaned up drafts Identified all remaining work items Identified all remaining work items Drafts “lost” because of bad numbering Drafts “lost” because of bad numbering 01 had been used before and had expired 01 had been used before and had expired Revision 02 in October Revision 02 in October Re-issue of revision 01 Re-issue of revision 01 Revision 03 now ready Revision 03 now ready Will publish after Minneapolis Will publish after Minneapolis Get them early at http://www.olddog.co.uk/download Get them early at http://www.olddog.co.uk/downloadhttp://www.olddog.co.uk/download

3 Revision 03 Changes Clean up compilation and smilint issues Clean up compilation and smilint issues Update examples Update examples Tidy up text and description clauses Tidy up text and description clauses Provide a next index object to supply the next available arbitrary index into the Label Table Provide a next index object to supply the next available arbitrary index into the Label Table Control and reporting of upstream and downstream Notify Recipients Control and reporting of upstream and downstream Notify Recipients Add support for control and reporting of GMPLS Administrative Status object Add support for control and reporting of GMPLS Administrative Status object Clarify which objects can be modified when rowStatus and adminStatus are set to active Clarify which objects can be modified when rowStatus and adminStatus are set to active Resolve defaults for objects with syntax BITS Resolve defaults for objects with syntax BITS Update references Update references

4 Remaining Work Expand conformance statements to provide support for configuring/monitoring tunnel resources in GMPLS systems (e.g. SONET/SDH or G.709) Expand conformance statements to provide support for configuring/monitoring tunnel resources in GMPLS systems (e.g. SONET/SDH or G.709) Extend the performance tables for technology-specific GMPLS LSPs Extend the performance tables for technology-specific GMPLS LSPs Consider a way to expose tunnel head, tunnel tail, and tunnel transit entries through additional tables Consider a way to expose tunnel head, tunnel tail, and tunnel transit entries through additional tables Add support for IF_ID control and error reporting (i.e.: add to notifications). Add support for IF_ID control and error reporting (i.e.: add to notifications). Add LSR or interface config for Hellos and restart options Add LSR or interface config for Hellos and restart options Update MIB description sections Update MIB description sections

5 Issues Determine whether the 'discriminated union' in the Label Table is good Determine whether the 'discriminated union' in the Label Table is good Do we want to be able to see/configure sub- fields of labels? Do we want to be able to see/configure sub- fields of labels? Is it enough to use octet string and type code? Is it enough to use octet string and type code? Should we have separate objects for different label types as in current draft Should we have separate objects for different label types as in current draft Who has implemented which versions? Who has implemented which versions? Remarkably little feedback received Remarkably little feedback received

6 Timetable Charter milestone Dec 03 Submit GMPLS MIBs to IESG Charter milestone Dec 03 Submit GMPLS MIBs to IESG Implies WG last call starts early December Implies WG last call starts early December Rev 03 mid November Rev 03 mid November Ready to publish Ready to publish Rev 04 Rev 04 To address all remaining open issues To address all remaining open issues Early December? Early December? Ready for MIB Doctor Review in December Ready for MIB Doctor Review in December Draft needs to “settle” Draft needs to “settle” Needs implementation experience. Needs implementation experience. WG Last Call to follow WG Last Call to follow


Download ppt "GMPLS MIBs draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-02.txt Tom Nadeau"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google