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

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

>  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?
I think that this suggestion involves two tables... One is
the current forwarding table, but with all of the indexes removed
and an integer index inserted instead.  The other is an index
table, with all of the current forwarding table indexes, with
each set of indexes mapping to an integer.

I understand why such a table could be useful in cases where
many different sets of indexes would point to the same
information...  But, I don't think that's the case here, so
I don't understand why this would be better.  Can someone
explain?

Another option would be to break the fowarding table up into a
forwarding table and a next-hop table.  Since there are a
limited number of next hops, we could have a small number
of entries in that table and reference them based on an
integer index in the forwarding table.

However, I think that any of these sorts of changes should be
considered as part of an effort to develop a new, more useful
forwarding table MIB, not as part of the effort to ship a
minimal version-independent update to the current RFC 2096.

Margaret