MIB II
Adel Fahmy <fahmy@vnet.ibm.com> Tue, 20 April 1993 20:07 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12522; 20 Apr 93 16:07 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12518; 20 Apr 93 16:07 EDT
Received: from cayman.cayman.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24453; 20 Apr 93 16:07 EDT
Received: by cayman.Cayman.COM (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA11605; Tue, 20 Apr 93 15:06:19 EDT
Return-Path: <fahmy@vnet.IBM.COM>
Received: from vnet.IBM.COM by cayman.Cayman.COM (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA11589; Tue, 20 Apr 93 15:06:12 EDT
Message-Id: <9304201906.AA11589@cayman.Cayman.COM>
Received: from RALVM29 by vnet.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3770; Tue, 20 Apr 93 15:06:08 EDT
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 14:34:35 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Adel Fahmy <fahmy@vnet.ibm.com>
To: apple-ip@cayman.com
Subject: MIB II
I have a comment, or query, on the use of the atportType to determine the format of addresses used in objects such as rtmpNextHop, zipZoneFrom, etc.. My comment is specifically for the case when the portType is frame-relay, where the MIB suggests that the addresses be in DLCI format... well, in our implementation based on RFC 1294 (multiprotocol over frame-relay), these addresses (NextHop, etc...) are actually normal AppleTalk type addresses (net number, node id) which get mapped at the DLC layer into DLCIs (The Inarp process establishes the mapping). What I'm trying to say is that since the subject addresses are at the AppleTalk address level, why are we using the DLCI format? This argument would probably carry over to the X25 case as well. For ppp, however, and since no AppleTalk net number or node id needs to be assigned, the use of a null string seems to be appropriate. We're quite new at AppleTalk here (although we're learning fast!), but could someone please address this comment! Thanks.