Re: Various DECnet MIB questions

Art Berggreen <> Fri, 28 August 1992 17:05 UTC

Received: from by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04493; 28 Aug 92 13:05 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04489; 28 Aug 92 13:05 EDT
Received: from by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11259; 28 Aug 92 13:07 EDT
Received: by; id AA08098; Fri, 28 Aug 92 10:07:13 -0700
Received: by; id AA10434; Fri, 28 Aug 92 10:00:44 -0700
Received: by; id AA10413; Fri, 28 Aug 92 10:00:22 -0700
Received: by; id AA11765; Fri, 28 Aug 92 09:59:42 -0700
Received: by (4.1/SMI-4.0)id AA09555; Fri, 28 Aug 92 10:01:18 PDT
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 10:01:18 PDT
From: Art Berggreen <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: Various DECnet MIB questions

>Re Multiple equal cost routes to a node...
>    Yes it's a problem, but we never solved it in Phase IV (or in Phase IV+)
>    management. Equal cost paths work in routing, but the info available to
>    management couldn't show anything but the first path. This messes up path
>    tracing applications, which end up showing only one of the possible paths.

Well, we can fix it in SNMP (if we really want to).  But I'm not sure I'm
ready for another instance change discussion right now.   ;>}

I just hate to hide routing information from the user that may be important
to him.  If a box supports equal cost paths and a user wishes to configure
his topology to use them (for load splitting or redundancy), then it makes
life difficult when he can't tell if the routes are missing or just not

I'd at least ask that we generate and document a rule as to which route is
returned, if there are multiple possibilities.  How about lowest circuit
index first, followed by lowest next-hop address for multiple choices on
the same circuit.