Re: Adjacency index
Bob Stewart <rlstewart@eng.xyplex.com> Thu, 27 August 1992 17:59 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06327; 27 Aug 92 13:59 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id ab06321; 27 Aug 92 13:59 EDT
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16358; 27 Aug 92 14:01 EDT
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA01082; Thu, 27 Aug 92 11:00:35 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA12860; Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:42:04 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA12856; Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:42:03 -0700
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA00153; Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:41:59 -0700
Received: by xap.xyplex.com id <AA05254@xap.xyplex.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 92 13:41:27 -0500
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:41:27 -0500
Message-Id: <9208271841.AA05254@xap.xyplex.com>
From: Bob Stewart <rlstewart@eng.xyplex.com>
To: phiv-mib@pa.dec.com
In-Reply-To: John A. Shriver's message of Thu, 27 Aug 92 12:09:03 EDT <9208271609.AA15196@sonny.proteon.com>
Subject: Re: Adjacency index
>The protocol is broken. Just redefining the index the way Xyplex did >does not solve the whole problem. Then you have no idea which circuit >an adjacency is on. Right. I didn't think of that. Actually, we may have done something truly bizarre and indexed by a useful integer but returned the circuit index for the allegedly corresponding MIB object. Or maybe not. That's academic. In any case the MIB is decidedly broken and it seems marking the table obsolete and replacing it with the double indexed one is the right answer. The encoding for the node address is indeed unfortunate. It would be slick if there was some way to keep it a single object and naturally divide it at the right boundary, but I can't think of one. Integer and octet string are both relatively bad for a generic NMS, and separating area and node in all cases is a pain. Now if we wanted to consider that, we'd have to weigh the change against existing implementations. It's so much easier to design a proprietary system, and that was no picnic. Bob
- Adjacency index saperia
- Adjacency index John A. Shriver
- Adjacency index John A. Shriver
- Re: Adjacency index Bob Stewart
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Adjacency index John A. Shriver
- Re: Adjacency index Bob Stewart
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Re: Adjacency index Art Berggreen
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Re: Adjacency index Bob Stewart
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Re: Adjacency index Debasis Dalapati
- Re: Adjacency index Debasis Dalapati
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Re: Adjacency index Art Berggreen
- Re: Adjacency index Debasis Dalapati
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Re: Adjacency index saperia