[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Pseudo WG Last Call for: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-taddress-mib-02.txt
Re: Ipv4OrIpv6 discussion
After thinking about this for a while I've concluded that I agree
with Juergen - that by the time one of these objects is instantiated
you have a concrete address to use. The case that I was considering
was if an application wants to open a port on all addresses associated
with the node. In this case there might be a small value to being able
to represent both v4 and v6 at the same time. However I don't think
that the value is worth the effort that would be required. I think that
requiring the application to insert two addresses (one for v4 and one for
v6) is acceptable.
I was wondering if it would be reasonable to add some more text to
describe this possibility.
Re: global addresses in non-global formats
I've been assuming that I would be able to represent a global address
in one of the non-global formats (xxxIpv6z). However after reading
some of the discussion I'm not so sure. What is the intention of the
And one new issue:
The description of TransportAddress makes it sound like there
must be a TransportAddressType or TransportDomain object associated
with the TransportAddress type. Is this what is intended or can
a MIB pre-define an object to be of a specific type? (which is what some
of the other text seems to allow).