Re: Non-member submission from [Roland.Meyer@nokia.com]

[Jon Saperia <saperia@jdscons.com>]

Thanks for the clarifications. The only observation I would make is that
you can not use the index inetCidrRouteInstance for two different
things. Either it is for vpn use or a typical integer index value which
would reasonably increase one at a time as indices are added to the
table. I assume you did not mean to imply otherwise, or have I missed
something?

Thanks
/jon
> Hi Jon,
> 
> Jon Saperia wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks very much. I looked at the Inet CIDR Route Table since if it were
> > every widely implemented correctly, it would be very helpful.  I think
> > it is just what I was looking for. I assume the following are true
> > statements:
> > 
> >         1. When done this table will replace the current CIDR Route
> >         Table since it is designed to hold both v4 and v6 addresses.
> 
> Yes. The new CIDR Route table i.e. inetCidrRouteTable, is a superset
> of the ipCidrRouteTable, and would (in all probability) deprecate
> the existing table.
> 
> > 
> >         2. The general index structure is pretty helpful and can be used
> >         as a model for tables in the future that need network layer
> >         addresses as their indicies.
> 
> The index structure has been more or less maintained from RFC 2096 
> (except for ipCidrRouteTos being replaced inetCidrRouteInstance).
> inetCidrRouteInstance seems to have been designed with universal
> applicability in mind i.e. it could also represent Tos based 
> classification but could also be used cases of multiple routing 
> tables - say for VPN. 
> 
> Note that the MIB also makes a comment that this object needs to 
> discussion (maybe a more detailed specification of what can/cannot 
> be represented by it). So, I guess, we need to wait and see what 
> its finally defined as..
> 
> -Rajiv.
> 
> > 
> > /jon
> > 
> > > Hi Roland,
> > >
> > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Forwarding a non-meber posting
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps somebody can answer the following questions:
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the current state of the IPv6MIB design?
> > >
> > > All I can say here is that these MIBs are being modelled on the
> > > lines of the existing IPv4 MIBs. Not sure about how much work
> > > is still to be done, guess that part could be better responded
> > > to by the authors..
> > >
> > > > > Where can one find (preliminary) results of the design work?
> > >
> > > You can find the draft versions of these MIBs at
> > > http://www.aciri.org/fenner/mibs/v6/
> > >
> > > HTH.
> > >
> > > Rajiv.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Roland
> > > > >
> > >
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > /jon
> > --
> > 
> > Jon Saperia                  saperia@jdscons.com
> >                              Phone: 617-744-1079
> >                              Fax:   617-249-0874
> >                              http://www.jdscons.com/
> 

Thanks,
/jon
--

Jon Saperia		     saperia@jdscons.com
			     Phone: 617-744-1079
			     Fax:   617-249-0874
			     http://www.jdscons.com/