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

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Yes, but none of this really gets us closer to an answer to the
really important questions:

        - Do people actually implement RFC 2096 today?
                - If so, are the implementations writable?

[I personally know of several implementations of RFC 2096, but
none of them are writable.]

        - Does anyone actually use RFC 2096 to manage,
                monitor, configure or debug a box?
                - If so, how and for what?

I am in no hurry to write a version-independent update to RFC
2096 if no one is actually using it.  But, if folks are using it,
presumably it will be just as useful for IPv6 as it is for IPv4,
right?

Margaret




At 10:20 AM 10/9/02, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> Or maybe a better expression would be "Some traffic may follow a different
> route because I have more details, but this MIB does not allow me to show
> that to you." Sound better, does it not?
>
> Bert
>
> --
> !! This message is brought to you via the `ipv6mib' mailing list.
> !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To unsubscribe or 
> adjust
> !! your settings, send a mail message to <ipv6mib-request@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
> !! or look at https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6mib.