RE: FC Mgmt mib

[charissa.willard@sanvalley.com]

Keith,

That solution sounds good to me.

Thanks,
Charissa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:kzm@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 2:39 PM
> To: charissa.willard@sanvalley.com
> Cc: kzm@cisco.com; arvindp@cisco.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu;
> smoffett@cisco.com; sriramnj@cisco.com; nramesh@cisco.com;
> gklee@cisco.com
> Subject: Re: FC Mgmt mib
> 
> 
> Charissa,
> 
> Sorry for the delay, but I have spoken with Arvind and he agrees
> that "encapsulates FC frames within another protocol" is a wide
> enough scope to cover his device, and thus, you're right that no
> change is needed for the FcUnitFunction TC.  
> 
> Further, the two objects within the current fcmEPortTable (i.e.,
> fcmEPortClassFCredit and fcmEPortClassFDataFieldSize) can both be
> applied to Arvind's device.  Now, you comment that 
> fcmEPortClassFCredit
> applies to B_Ports, and I'm confident that fcmEPortClassFDataFieldSize
> does also.  Thus, the fcmEPortTable actually applies to E_Ports and
> B_Ports.  So, rather than have separate tables for B_Ports 
> and E_Ports,
> with the same objects defined in both (i.e., a duplication), I'd like
> to use the existing table for both types.  All that is required is to
> change the name to, say, the fcmInterSwitchPortTable (which is roughly
> what you suggested in your previous message), and update its 
> definition
> to say it applies to E_Ports, B_Ports and any other type of port which
> interfaces to an inter-switch link.
> 
> If you agree, I'll go ahead and update the MIB.
> 
> Keith.
> 
> 
> > Keith,
> > 
> > > 
> > > 3. A new table for 'tunnel' ports
> > > 
> > > - I'd rather not add a new table unless it's absolutely necessary.
> > >   How about I just broaden the scope of the fcmEPortTable so that
> > >   it applies not only to E_Ports but also to 'tunnel' ports ??
> > >
> > 
> > > The MIB will also need a new group for devices supporting 'tunnel'
> > > functionality, which will contain just fcmEPortClassFCredit
> > > and fcmEPortClassFDataFieldSize, right ??
> > 
> > For FC over IP a port can be either a B_port or an E_port. 
> A B_port supports
> > Class F frames and thus could at least use the Class F 
> BB_Credit object that
> > you specified in fcmEPortTable. 
> > 
> > The MIB defines the FcUnitFunction type of 'bridge' as 
> "encapsulates FC
> > frames within another protocol". Doesn't this imply "tunneling"? 
> > 
> > Since a B_port is transparent to the Fabric, just providing 
> a table for
> > B_Ports may provide a solution for other devices/ports that 
> are transparent
> > to the Fabric and need an object for BB_Credit.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Charissa
> > 
>