Re: DECnet MIB question (3) -- adjacency index

[[e-mail]]

I believe the following will make everyone happy:


       phivAdjTable OBJECT-TYPE
           SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF PhivAdjEntry
           ACCESS not-accessible
           STATUS mandatory
           DESCRIPTION
               "The Adjacency Table."
           ::= { adjacency 1 }

       phivAdjEntry OBJECT-TYPE
           SYNTAX PhivAdjEntry
           ACCESS not-accessible
           STATUS mandatory
           DESCRIPTION
               "There is one entry in the table for each adjacency."
          INDEX  { phivAdjIndex  }
          ::= { phivAdjTable 1 }

       PhivAdjEntry ::=
           SEQUENCE {
               phivAdjIndex
                   INTEGER,
               phivAdjCircuitIndex
                   INTEGER,
               phivAdjNodeAddr
                   PhivAddr,
:
:stuff deleted
:
      phivAdjIndex OBJECT-TYPE
           SYNTAX INTEGER
           ACCESS read-only
           STATUS mandatory
           DESCRIPTION
               "A unique index value for each known adjacency."
           ::= { phivAdjEntry 1 }

      phivAdjCircuitIndex OBJECT-TYPE
           SYNTAX INTEGER
           ACCESS read-only
           STATUS mandatory
           DESCRIPTION
               "A unique index value for each known circuit.  This
               value is the same as phivCircuitIndex."
           ::= { phivAdjEntry 2 }

       phivAdjNodeAddr OBJECT-TYPE
           SYNTAX PhivAddr -- OCTET STRING (SIZE (2))
           ACCESS read-only
           STATUS mandatory
           DESCRIPTION
               "The address of the adjacent node."
           ::= { phivAdjEntry 3 }



:
:more stuff leff out
:


Return-Path: [e-mail]
Received: by tcpjon.ogo.dec.com (5.57/ULTRIX-fma-071891);
	id AA01095; Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:25:39 -0400
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA24814; Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:22:51 -0700
Received: by opal.acc.com (4.1/SMI-4.0)id AA17476; Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:23:02 PDT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:23:02 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Art Berggreen)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: saperia
Subject: Re: DECnet MIB question (3)  -- adjacency index
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]

>
>Hi,  This has gotten a bit confusing for me, so I have extracted form the mib,
>entered changes - Please comment on this directly. 
>
>Is this what John/Art are suggesting:
>
>
>       phivAdjTable OBJECT-TYPE
>           SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF PhivAdjEntry
>           ACCESS not-accessible
>           STATUS mandatory
>           DESCRIPTION
>               "The Adjacency Table."
>           ::= { adjacency 1 }
>
>       phivAdjEntry OBJECT-TYPE
>           SYNTAX PhivAdjEntry
>           ACCESS not-accessible
>           STATUS mandatory
>           DESCRIPTION
>               "There is one entry in the table for each adjacency."
>----->     INDEX  { phivAdjCircuitIndex, phivAdjNodeAddr }
	             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'd go for this, but others seem to prefer something like:
	    INDEX  { phivAdjIndex  }

>           ::= { phivAdjTable 1 }
>
>       PhivAdjEntry ::=
>           SEQUENCE {
>               phivAdjCircuitIndex
>                   INTEGER,
>               phivAdjNodeAddr
>                   PhivAddr
>:
>:lines deleted
>:
>      phivAdjCircuitIndex OBJECT-TYPE
>           SYNTAX INTEGER
>           ACCESS read-only
>           STATUS mandatory
>           DESCRIPTION
>------>        "A unique index value for each known adjacency."

No, from its name, I think this object should be the Circuit Table Index.
If we use a single part, local instance, we need a new object (maybe called
phivAdjIndex) which is unique across all adjacencies.  If so, I'd like to
be able to give it locally meaningful structure, but externally it's just
a unique INTEGER.

>           ::= { phivAdjEntry 1 }
>
>       phivAdjNodeAddr OBJECT-TYPE
>           SYNTAX PhivAddr -- OCTET STRING (SIZE (2))
>           ACCESS read-only
>           STATUS mandatory
>           DESCRIPTION
>               "The address of the adjacent node."
>           ::= { phivAdjEntry 2 }
>
>This still leaves us with no connection to the circuit over which the
>adjacency occurs.  We can either add circuit (as I noted yesturday)  or we can
>redefine phivAdjCircuitIndex to be something else (e.g., the Circuit Table
>index).  If we do the latter are we certain that we have under all
>circumstances created unique indicies to the table?

By definition, Adjacencies are formed with other nodes (defined by node ID)
across a circuit (defined by circuit index).  If the instance reflects that,
it must be unique.  On the other hand, we can use a simple index which is
locally defined and guaranteed unique.

>/jon

Art