hi Adrian,
Could you please clarify it bit more. Does this mean that we pass
pointer to {pcepSessState, pcePcepSessStateLastChange} in pcePcepSessEntry
table (maybe via OID-ref)
rather than actual {session-state, timestamp} value for this notification.
Regards
Anush
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:35 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey Sowmya,
>
>
>
> I think you may misunderstand the nature of SNMP notifications. The
> objects they contain are not abstract fields, they are objects in entries
> in tables. Thus, the notification is supplying specific fields in specific
> entries in the tables, and so automatically indicate the context.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Pce [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *M.Sowmya ..
> *Sent:* 12 May 2018 14:58
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [Pce] Query regarding RFC7420
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> This query is regarding the current PCEP standard MIB.
>
> In the current MIB implementation, neither *pcePcepPeerAddr *nor
> *pcePcepEntityIndex* is part of the standard notification object.
>
>
>
> With this implementation, how do we indicate active and standby PCEP
> sessions in the notifications or in other words how to uniquely identify
> the PCEP session that sends the notification?
>
>
>
> We would like to propose a modification to the existing draft to include
> the unique session identifier as part of the notification object.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sowmya
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
