Re: Adjacency index

[Debasis Dalapati <[e-mail]>]

>>
>>[e-mail] ( jon saperia ) wrote:
>>
>> [ stuffs deleted ]
>>
>>       phivAdjEntry OBJECT-TYPE
>>           SYNTAX PhivAdjEntry
>>           ACCESS not-accessible
>>           STATUS mandatory
>>           DESCRIPTION
>>               "There is one entry in the table for each adjacency."
>>           INDEX  { phivAdjCircuitName, phivAdjNodeAddr }
>>           ::= { phivAdjTable 1 }
>>
>> [ stuffs deleted ]
>>
>>       phivAdjCircuitName OBJECT-TYPE
>>           SYNTAX OCTET STRING
>>           ACCESS read-only
>>           STATUS mandatory
>>           DESCRIPTION
>>               "The name of the circuit over which the adjacency is
>>               realized.  This combined with the phivAdjNodeAddr give
>>               a unique index into this table."
>>           ::= { phivAdjEntry 1 }
>>
>> [ stuffs deleted ]
>>
>
>[e-mail] (John A. Shriver) replied:
>
>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.
>
>
>[e-mail] (Art Berggreen) replied:
>
>If you were to use phivAdjCircuitNmae, it would have to be the last component
>of the instance (being variable length).
>
>But please, let's use phivAdjCircuitIndex, it's much simpler to deal with.
>

I am not sure when the idea of using "circuit name" got into this discussion
but I am panicking about the consequences. I am not sure also of the 
motivation. Whatever could be done with "circuit name", it could be done
with "phivCircuitIndex".

And, it could be done with so much less complication and less memory!

I have to deal with not only a management station but also with the
routing implementation. 

So, please use "phivCircuitIndex" with whatever name you prefer. 

debasis dalapati