Re: New IPv6 MIBs and RFC2452, RFC2454, RFC2465, and RFC2466

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> C M Heard writes:

Mike> Some, but not all.  I am still troubled that the drafts that are
Mike> proposed to replace RFC 2012 and RFC 2013 (IPv4-only TCP and UDP
Mike> MIBs) and RFC 2452 and RFC 2454 (IPv6-only TCP and UDP MIBs) are
Mike> fixing some things that are not actually broken.  Maybe it is
Mike> more elegant to have one combined version-independent connection
Mike> table/listener table instead to two version-specific ones, but
Mike> there is no gain at all in functionality.

The IPv6 MIBs introduced the notion of an Ipv6IfIndex which creates
another namespace which does not seem to be needed. The current TCP
and UDP MIB drafts avoid the Ipv6IfIndex namespace since the
InetAddress definitions already take care of the details.

/js