Re: Fwd: [ipv6mib] So, where were we?

[Matt Mathis <mathis@psc.edu>]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

> Michael> If there are needs for other views of the FIB, then I would
> Michael> suggest defining additional tables in other rfc documents and
> Michael> get a base view to full standard asap as appears to be done
> Michael> for rfc2863/2864.
> 
> Fine with me as long as it is very very clearly stated that
> implementing this MIB on boxes that have more than such a minimalist
> FIB mechanism is strongly discouraged because it fools management
> applications.

Although I am not a routing person, let me observe that this doesn't work in 
the market.   The problem is that if you have a box the only implements a simple 
FIB and implement the simple MIB to go with it, then down the road when the box 
becomes more complicated you either have to un-implement the simple MIB 
(unsupporing some of your customers simple management software) or start lying 
about routes......

I suggest a better approach would be to add an attribute to each route which
says "Incompletely specified route match - some traffic that seems to match
this index is following some other route with additional qualifications".  
Note that since routing technology is a moving target, this should be added to
*all* routing MIBs for all protocols.  I would call it the "I might be lying
flag", to make the point that it can't be ignored.

Thanks,
--MM--
----------------------------------------------
Matt Mathis <mathis@psc.edu>    W:412.268.3319
http://www.psc.edu/~mathis      H:412.654.7529
----------------------------------------------