Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

2017-03-27 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 27 mars 2017 21:15 GMT, Jeff Haas  : >> I totally understand it's not possible to just fix the issue. Your best >> bet is to convert the draft into a RFC and fix the issue here! ;-) > > After checking with Jürgen about RFC 4001 encoding (no better answer!) > he confirms that

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

2017-03-27 Thread Jeff Haas
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 4:15 PM, Jeff Haas wrote: > > >> On Mar 27, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: >> >> ❦ 27 mars 2017 19:26 GMT, Jeff Haas : >> >>> To your relevant next point: If the junos mib is in error, what to do about

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

2017-03-27 Thread Jeff Haas
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > ❦ 27 mars 2017 19:26 GMT, Jeff Haas : > >> To your relevant next point: If the junos mib is in error, what to do about >> it? >> >> Very likely fixing the issue will cause mass amounts of

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

2017-03-27 Thread Jeff Haas
On Mar 27, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Vincent Bernat > wrote: ❦ 27 mars 2017 19:26 GMT, Jeff Haas > : To your relevant next point: If the junos mib is in error, what to do about it? Very likely fixing the issue will

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

2017-03-27 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 27 mars 2017 19:26 GMT, Jeff Haas  : > To your relevant next point: If the junos mib is in error, what to do about > it? > > Very likely fixing the issue will cause mass amounts of unhappiness as > people's existing scripts and mib walking code fails due to the new >

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

2017-03-27 Thread Jeff Haas
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: >>> So, 192.0.2.47 should be encoded to 4.192.0.2.47. >> >> Probably no. >> >> The headache here is that the underlying type is RFC 4001's >> InetAddress. As you can see in the documentation in that RFC the >> expectation

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

2017-03-27 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 27 mars 2017 16:10 GMT, Jeff Haas  : >> I have been reported a (simple) bug in the implementation of the >> BGP4-V2-MIB-JUNIPER. I know that if I open a JTAC case about this, I >> will be asked a lot of unrelated questions, then I would be told that >> since this never

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

2017-03-27 Thread Jeff Haas
> On Jan 20, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > Hey! > > I have been reported a (simple) bug in the implementation of the > BGP4-V2-MIB-JUNIPER. I know that if I open a JTAC case about this, I > will be asked a lot of unrelated questions, then I would be told that >

[j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

2017-01-20 Thread Vincent Bernat
Hey! I have been reported a (simple) bug in the implementation of the BGP4-V2-MIB-JUNIPER. I know that if I open a JTAC case about this, I will be asked a lot of unrelated questions, then I would be told that since this never really worked, this is not the scope for JTAC. So, as I know some