At 01:38 PM 11/11/2004, Adrian Farrel wrote:
A few nits, probably worth getting them out early.
1. Please say "MIB module" not "MIB"
2. As suggested at the mic, do consider SNMP Notifications, but also
consider the amount
of information overload that might arise on recovery from a single network
much more interesting to keep statistics and history about actions and errors.
I think these belong in the IGP-specific MIBs, so that they can be related
to the particular area that was affected.
Of interest might be:
a) Event count: hold-down for link-protecting alternates was
terminated because a node failed.
b) Event count: hold-down for node-protecting alternates was
terminated because an unrelated link failed.
c) Event count: single link failure triggered SPF
d) Event count: single node failure triggered SPF
e) Event count: local link failure triggered SPF
3. Please split references into normative and informational.
I suspect draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-07 is needed as a normative reference
4. I agree that write access will be needed for some objects.
Do you think we need write access into both the ipFrrAltTable and the
ipFrrNoAltTable? I primarily see this as being useful for static routes.
Rtgwg mailing list