RE: Advice on restricting SIZE of InetAddress in INDEX?

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Commens inline

> ----------
> From: 	Bill Fenner[SMTP:fenner@research.att.com]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, July 11, 2000 8:37 PM
> To: 	mibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: 	Advice on restricting SIZE of InetAddress in INDEX?
> 
> 
> The DESCRIPTION of InetAddress says:
> 
>             When this textual convention is used as the syntax of an
>             index object, there may be issues with the limit of 128
>             sub-identifiers specified in SMIv2, STD 58. In this case,
>             the OBJECT-TYPE declaration MUST include a 'SIZE' clause
>             to limit the number of potential instance sub-identifiers."
> 
> How do I include a SIZE and still retain the flexibility of supporting
> future types?  Include the max SIZE that will fit (e.g. I have two
> InetAddresses in an INDEX so make them SIZE(1..120))?  Or, since I
> only expect to see IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, make them SIZE(4|16|20)?
> 
Well, two times 120 would make 240 subIDs and that is over 128.
So that is certainly not valid.  Maybe something like 32 might be a good
size,
or maybe 48, that leaves you some room for new protocols in the future.

	Bert