RE: Referential integrity across reboots

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 10:54 AM 8/6/2002 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>> yes -- I agree 100%.  Experience has demonstrated that the ifIndex
>> and entPhysicalIndex type of MIB design is flawed. (This is 
>> yet another reason why CLI much more useful than MIBs for 
>> configuration.)  It is critical that persistent resources retain
>> the same identity across reboots.  I guess the IF-MIB, Entity MIB,
>> and any other similarly flawed MIB should be fixed.
>> 
>So...
>- The entmib WG is currently working on a revision of the entity MIB.
>  May I assume you will pick it up there and come with proposals
>  on how to fix it?

yes.

>- What proposals (if any) do we have for the IF-MIB.
>  And if we have some, can we revive the IFMIB WG (It does
>  still exist as far as I know) to get it fixed there as well.

Others will quickly point out that it is illegal (by SMIv2 rules)
to change the semantics/implementation requirements of ifIndex.
However the only practical (i.e. usable in the real world) solution
is to do exactly that.  There are so many OID pointers and
subordinate tables that use ifIndex, that it will be pointless
to create a new ifTable with a new index.

>- Who is willing to work (I know thet Juergen once started)
>  on a replacement for StorageType that WILL be implementable
>  on most systems and that WILL be usable and workable.,

I would participate in the WG, especially if Juergen volunteered 
to be the Editor.


>Bert

Andy