[cgl_discussion] New Top Issues item: SVC.1.4 - UDP MIBS

Zou, Yixiong yixiong.zou at intel.com
Wed Nov 5 18:56:58 PST 2003


This is definitely an issue for CGL. 

Net-snmp has in the past received several patches that implemented the 
combined mib for BSD systems, but as far as I know, none of them made 
into the code base.  The issue being you have to remove the old module 
in order to use the new one since the new mib also invalidates the old 
ipv4 mib.  But I also got email from the maintainer that they are 
willing to work with us if we have an implementation for linux for 
their 5.1 release.  FYI, the latest release is 5.1-pre3.  

Another thing that might affect the adoption of the NET-SNMP patch is
how soon IETF can make the new mibs into RFCs.  

Also, all the patches done for BSD systems are done last year or earlier
this year. So they are now invalid since the mib draft changed after 
that.  This is another reason that I'd like to see the UDP mib gone 
through a couple revisions before I start implementing it.  Well, it
also depends on how fast we get IP and TCP finished. 

BTW, it really isn't just the UDP that is a scratch implementation. 
It is almost everything from scratch since IP mib, which is the biggest,
changed the most and there was no IP mib implementation before as well. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yixiong Zou (yixiong.zou at intel.com)
(503) 677-4988

All views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Venkata Jagana [mailto:jagana at us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 6:40 PM
> To: Zou, Yixiong
> Cc: cgl_discussion at osdl.org; Fleischer, Julie N
> Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] New Top Issues item: SVC.1.4 - UDP MIBS
> 
> Hi Yixiong,
> 
> Glad you clarified this. OK, this UDP6/4 MIB implementation will now
> turn out to be scratch implementation in net-snmp for linux then.
> 
> Do you know whether net-snmp is doing anything to support on BSD
> based on these new combined MIBs? If they are already then it 
> will become
> easier for you to support it because they would have already agreed
> upon the framework to support these combined MIBs.
> 
> bottomline: the net-snmp portion will become an issue for end of 2003.
> 
> Julie, based on this info, I think it is reasonable to track this item
> as an issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> Venkat
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                               
>                                                               
>           
>                       "Zou, Yixiong"                          
>                                                               
>           
>                       <yixiong.zou at inte        To:       
> Venkata Jagana/Beaverton/IBM at IBMUS, "Fleischer, Julie N"      
>                
>                       l.com>                    
> <julie.n.fleischer at intel.com>                                 
>                         
>                                                cc:       
> <cgl_discussion at osdl.org>                                     
>                
>                       11/05/2003 06:20         Subject:  RE: 
> [cgl_discussion] New Top Issues item:  SVC.1.4 - UDP MIBS     
>            
>                       PM                                      
>                                                               
>           
>                                                               
>                                                               
>           
>                                                               
>                                                               
>           
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let me clarify one thing.  I originally said that TCPv6 and UDPv6
> are implemented in NET-SNMP but I couldn't verify it.  It turns
> out it is implemented but not for Linux.  Most of the IPv6 features in
> NET-SNMP are for BSD systems.  So you can say that there is actually
> no implementation in user-space.
> 
> I was planning on for IP and TCP to be done by the end of the year
> since there is no UDP mib. Now I am not sure if we have enough time
> for UDP.  We have to do both v4 and v6 in the user space because
> of the combined mib so the work load just multiplied.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Yixiong Zou (yixiong.zou at intel.com)
> (503) 677-4988
> 
> All views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cgl_discussion-bounces at lists.osdl.org
> > [mailto:cgl_discussion-bounces at lists.osdl.org] On Behalf Of
> > Venkata Jagana
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 5:52 PM
> > To: Fleischer, Julie N
> > Cc: cgl_discussion at osdl.org
> > Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] New Top Issues item: SVC.1.4 
> - UDP MIBS
> >
> > Looks like this problem is blown out of proportion but let me
> > try to clarify this :)
> >
> > Please keep in mind that corresponding to each of the MIBs, 
> there is a
> > user (net-snmp) and a kernel component. As far as the 
> kernel component
> > goes,
> > IBM is still aiming to complete the implementation of UDP MIB
> > by end of
> > this year and in fact, the implementation will be based upon the new
> > unified UDP draft (which is not going to be a major change from the
> > current UDP/IPv6 RFC document except for the fact that now both IPv4
> > and Ipv6 are combined). I am not sure about what Yixiong's plans
> > are regarding this MIB support as far user component (net-snmp) goes
> > but I would believe that if it is committed to be implemented
> > by end of
> > this year then I don't see any problem with this new draft either.
> > If you are still seeing this as an issue, then you need to track it.
> >
> > >In addition, there is no open source implementation of the old RFC.
> >
> > This is not true for both kernel and user (net-snmp) components.
> > btw, there exists an implementation for Ipv6 UDP MIB within 
> the kernel
> > source tree but it is incorrectly implemented. And as far 
> as the user
> > component goes, according to Yixiong, there already exists an
> > implementation within net-snmp per old RFC (see this 
> following thread
> > (http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/cgl_discussion/2003-February/
> > 000922.html)
> > but this implementation need to change based upon the new draft.
> >
> > >So, I propose we place this on the Top Issues list to 
> track to ensure
> > >there is an open source project that meets
> >
> > I don't see a need for separate open source project. There
> > already exists
> > net-snmp to cover user portion and the kernel components 
> are submitted
> > to the mainline and they are getting accepted and integrated.
> >
> > However, I agree that we need to track this as a top issue
> > since there are
> > so many dependencies (kernel/net-snmp/ietf standard/..) and
> > we don't have
> > much time left.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Venkat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                       "Fleischer, Julie N"
> >
> >
> >                       <julie.n.fleischer at intel.c        To:
> >     <cgl_discussion at osdl.org>
> >
> >                       om>                               cc:
> >
> >
> >                       Sent by:
> > Subject:  [cgl_discussion] New Top Issues item:  SVC.1.4 -
> > UDP MIBS
> >                       cgl_discussion-bounces at lis
> >
> >
> >                       ts.osdl.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                       11/05/2003 04:03 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Along the lines of our SVC.1.4 discussion on the errata for this
> > requirement:  Because the UDB MIBS draft is new, there isn't
> > be enough time
> > to implement a product based on this draft this year (see Yixiong's
> > original email).  There was also originally some concern that
> > it is still
> > unstable, but Venkata believes that it is not.  In addition,
> > there is no
> > open source implementation of the old RFC.
> >
> > So, we don't currently have a PoC implementation for the UDP
> > MIBS portion
> > of SVC.1.4.  Yixiong believes that by Q1 of 2004 there could be an
> > implementation (It's not in our original goal of end of 2003,
> > but maybe
> > this would meet distros schedule nonetheless?).
> >
> > So, I propose we place this on the Top Issues list to track
> > to ensure there
> > is an open source project that meets all of requirement
> > SVC.1.4 for CGL 2.0
> > at least by Q1 2004.
> >
> > - Julie
> >
> > **These views are not necessarily those of my employer.**
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cgl_discussion mailing list
> > cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> > http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cgl_discussion mailing list
> > cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> > http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 




More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list