Subject: re:PU names in the NAU MIB

From: "jim (j.) cobban" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 10:08:00 -0500

In message "PU names in the NAU MIB", [email-masked]' writes:

>If the MIB owner manages PUs in different subareas (as DLUR would)
>then the Hosts' names for these PUs are not unique.  The proposal
>therefore depends upon the names being locally administered.

PU names are required to be unique within a domain, not just within a
subarea.  The documentation of the X'0E' vector is a little ambiguous as to
whether the PU name in an ACTPU or ACTLU is qualified by a NETID, although
it does lean in that direction, since the contents is labeled "network-
qualified name".  Presumeably whether it is network-qualified or not would
depend upon the release of VTAM.  The vector certainly does not exist in an
ACTPU from any release of VTAM prior to 4.2, and possibly even in that
release it is present only on ACTPUs sent to DLUR.  The vector definitely
exists on ACTLUs solicited by the NMVT for DDDLU and on those sent to DLUR
but may not be included in any other case.  I have asked IBM for a
clarification.

>A possible compromise would be for the NAU MIB to be able to provide
>the Host's name for a PU, as well, where known.  Similarly for LUs.
>Maybe that's what you had in mind.

Since the name SHOULD be globally unique, this is not necessary.  However
the name may be different from the administrative name, and since the rows of
snaNodeAdminTable and snaNodeOperTable are indexed by the administrative
name the PU name, if learned from the ACTPU, must be recorded in another
object.

My comments were actually specifically about recording the LU name from the
ACTLU since it was a followup to a discussion of the desireability of
retaining the snaLuAdminLocalAddress object, which was justified as a golden
screw for network management.  However the argument applies equally well to
the PU name.