Re: FC Management MIB - proposed changes

["Ken Hirata" <Ken.Hirata@Vixel.com>]

David,

One nit (or misunderstanding).  In item 5 below, Zoned and Unzoned
name services are simultaneously active.

My understanding is that Zoned name services present a view to a
device of all other devices with which it may communicate (same as
your explanation).

Unzoned name services are used by a Management application to
retrieve information about all devices in the Fabric.

                                            Ken

Black_David@emc.com wrote:

> Folks,
>
> For simplicity, I would propose keeping the initial revision focused
> on structural and format changes only - i.e., make no functional
> changes that aren't required to bring the MIB into line with the
> overall architecture of MIBs, use of SMIv2, and the like.  Comments on
> this, keyed to Keith's issue numbers:
>
> 1.  The trap table doesn't match up with RFC 2573 - I presume
>         correcting this is part of the conversion to SMIv2.
>
> 3.  Let's keep the replacement of RFC 2837 as (a) a proposal
>         and (b) Keith's recommendation to the WG as MIB Advisor,
>         but not formally adopt that approach until we have a version
>         of the MIB draft that would replace RFC 2837 available for
>         review by the WG.
>
> 5.  I think there's a misunderstanding here.  There is only one
>         name service in any FC fabric, period.  The term "Simple Name
>         Service" is historical and refers to the current approach
>         to Fibre Channel fabric name service by contrast to the
>         originally-proposed X.500 directory-based approach (see the
>         original FC-GS) - the meaning of "Simple" should now be
>         obvious, as it's by comparison to X.500 ;-).
>
>         Both the Zoned and Unzoned name services are simple name services.
>         The same objects can be used to represent both, as only one is
>         active at any time, and the communication interfaces/protocols
>         are identical.  Client access to the name service is the same
>         in both cases; zoned vs. unzoned only affects server behavior
>         in terms of what is returned to a query.  In addition the name
>         service objects are described to represent only entities
>         "known to this unit".  So, in a zoned fabric, I would expect
>         the table in a switch to be completely populated, but the table
>         in an HBA to contain only the entries in that HBA's zone
>         because the HBA doesn't "know" about any others.
>
>         The name server objects need to be retained - these are quite
>         important for fabric management visibility.  Whether the fabric
>         is zoned or not and how the nameserver behaves can be determined
>         from the zone objects (i.e., for a switch, the nameserver objects
>         contain everything and the zone objects have to be consulted to
>         figure out what a query from a particular client to the nameserver
>         will return).
>
> 7.  I would definitely take out Class 1 support, and reference FC-MI
>         (which prohibits Class 1 service) as an authority for doing so.
>
> 8.  For the initial version, I would only carry forward the zone
>         objects existing in the current MIB and not define any new
>         functionality - that can be done in revisions after -00.
>
> 9.  I'd prefer that the -00 version contain no additional functional
>         changes beyond those required to support the necessary
>         structure and format changes.  Once we have that -00 baseline,
>         functional changes can be made from there.
>
> 2, 4, and 6 look fine to me, as does the new draft name.
>
> Comments?
>
> Thanks,
> --David

--
Kenneth Hirata
Vixel Corporation
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 450-6100
Email: Ken.Hirata@Vixel.com