Adjacency index

"John A. Shriver" <jas@proteon.com> Fri, 28 August 1992 15:06 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03155; 28 Aug 92 11:06 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03151; 28 Aug 92 11:06 EDT
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08569; 28 Aug 92 11:07 EDT
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA01499; Fri, 28 Aug 92 08:07:12 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA09407; Fri, 28 Aug 92 07:58:46 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA09403; Fri, 28 Aug 92 07:58:44 -0700
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA00996; Fri, 28 Aug 92 07:58:38 -0700
Received: from sonny.proteon.com by monk.proteon.com (5.65/1.8)id AA28086; Fri, 28 Aug 92 10:57:34 -0400
Received: by sonny.proteon.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)id AA18909; Fri, 28 Aug 92 10:56:46 EDT
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 10:56:46 EDT
From: "John A. Shriver" <jas@proteon.com>
Message-Id: <9208281456.AA18909@sonny.proteon.com>
To: saperia@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com
Cc: rlstewart@eng.xyplex.com, saperia@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com, phiv-mib@pa.dec.com
In-Reply-To: saperia@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com's message of Fri, 28 Aug 92 09:55:32 -0400 <9208281355.AA10320@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com>
Subject: Adjacency index

Using a variable length name as an index?  That sounds very painful to
me.  I'd really rather index by the circuit number.  This is very
consistent with the IP MIB indexing by interface number.