Re: DECnet MIB question (3) -- adjacency

Debasis Dalapati <deb@tci.bell-atl.com> Mon, 24 August 1992 14:59 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09094; 24 Aug 92 10:59 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09090; 24 Aug 92 10:59 EDT
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11829; 24 Aug 92 11:01 EDT
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA10194; Mon, 24 Aug 92 08:00:31 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA09096; Mon, 24 Aug 92 07:00:44 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA09092; Mon, 24 Aug 92 07:00:43 -0700
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA06960; Mon, 24 Aug 92 07:00:42 -0700
Received: by bagate.BELL-ATL.COM (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.29)id <m0mMezr-0000aTC@bagate.BELL-ATL.COM>; Mon, 24 Aug 92 10:02 EDT
Received: by tci.bell-atl.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)id AA15515; Mon, 24 Aug 92 09:41:39 EDT
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 09:41:39 EDT
From: Debasis Dalapati <deb@tci.bell-atl.com>
Message-Id: <9208241341.AA15515@tci.bell-atl.com>
To: phiv-mib@pa.dec.com
Subject: Re: DECnet MIB question (3) -- adjacency

>>
>>jas@proteon.com (John A. Shriver) wrote:
>>
>>Hmm, as I look at it harder, I start to agree (much as I don't want to
>>be the person implenting it) that the INDEX should be
>>{phivAdjNodeAddr, phivAdjCircuitIndex}.  It won't be the first table
>>to have node addresses as indices.
>
>art@opal.acc.com (Art Berggreen) wrote:
>
>If we go this route, I'd just ask to swap the order to:
>    { phivAdjCircuitIndex, phivAdjNodeAddr }
>
>so that all of the adjacencies on a circuit will group together during a
>table walk.
>

Art,

I have the same proposal as you have.
Having { phivAdjCircuitIndex, phivAdjNodeAddr } as the INDEX will be useful
in finding all the adjacencies through a circuit. 

debasis