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

[Brian Haberman <bkhabs@nc.rr.com>]

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 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.]
I do not know any that are writable either.

>         - Does anyone actually use RFC 2096 to manage,
>                 monitor, configure or debug a box?
>                 - If so, how and for what?
From what I have been able to gather, no one with a "large" route
table ever uses 2096 to pull it down.  This seems to be for
various reasons[0].

Some admins will query the table for specific routes to ensure
they exist.  This is done during problem determination mode.

> 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?
Yes, it will be just as "useful" for v6 as it is for v4. :)

[0] I have talked to one operator who specifically stated that
    the indexing in 2096 was too complicated.  So that brings
    me back to a question I asked the other day.  Should someone
    investigate a way to simplify the indexing?  One suggestion
    I have heard is to change the MIB indices to integers and
    have a mapping table that derives the integer from a more
    comprehensive set of variables.  Does this mapping table
    exist on the querier or the queried?

Brian