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

[Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>]

>Yes. The new CIDR Route table i.e. inetCidrRouteTable, is a superset
>of the ipCidrRouteTable, and would (in all probability) deprecate
>the existing table.

That's the plan; http://www.aciri.org/fenner/mibs/v6/IP-FORWARD-MIB
does contain a deprecated definition of ipCidrRouteTable.

>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..

"We" could have some input into what it is finally defined as =)
You're right that the idea is that the instance is there to provide
flexibility, but as usual the cost of the flexibility is an
imprecise definition.  A table mapping instances to concrete
things would help, but we don't know what concrete things people
will use instances for yet so it's hard to define such a table =)

  Bill