Adjacency index
"John A. Shriver" <jas@proteon.com> Thu, 27 August 1992 17:00 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05647; 27 Aug 92 13:00 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05643; 27 Aug 92 13:00 EDT
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15133; 27 Aug 92 13:02 EDT
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA27737; Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:00:43 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA11826; Thu, 27 Aug 92 09:09:35 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA11822; Thu, 27 Aug 92 09:09:33 -0700
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA24807; Thu, 27 Aug 92 09:09:31 -0700
Received: from sonny.proteon.com by monk.proteon.com (5.65/1.8)id AA22427; Thu, 27 Aug 92 12:09:45 -0400
Received: by sonny.proteon.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)id AA15196; Thu, 27 Aug 92 12:09:03 EDT
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:09:03 -0400
From: "John A. Shriver" <jas@proteon.com>
Message-Id: <9208271609.AA15196@sonny.proteon.com>
To: rlstewart@eng.xyplex.com
Cc: phiv-mib@pa.dec.com, sylor@blumon.enet.dec.com
In-Reply-To: Bob Stewart's message of Wed, 26 Aug 92 10:52:10 -0500 <9208261552.AA18080@xap.xyplex.com>
Subject: Adjacency index
The protocol is broken. Just redefining the index the way Xyplex did does not solve the whole problem. Then you have no idea which circuit an adjacency is on. This is mandatory information in debugging DECnet routing problems. A SNMP MIB that does not allow hop-by-hop debugging of the routing is busted. While the routing table is the primary information, you really need to know where the adjacencies are to debug failures. As for the order of entries in a table, it really does not matter what values and arbitrary index takes. The station can just search the table. It would not be the only MIB table with a "meaningless" index, although that is certainly not the desired design. As for the endcoding of the address, I had brought that up a long time ago. I had proposed that the DECnet addresses be coded as two ASN.1 intergers, area and node. It wasn't defined that way (I think for consistency with NICE), and is instead one opaque integer. I hadn't realized that the opaque integer (octet string) was going to get decomposed into two 1-byte indices. Ouch.
- Adjacency index saperia
- Adjacency index John A. Shriver
- Adjacency index John A. Shriver
- Re: Adjacency index Bob Stewart
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Adjacency index John A. Shriver
- Re: Adjacency index Bob Stewart
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Re: Adjacency index Art Berggreen
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Re: Adjacency index Bob Stewart
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Re: Adjacency index Debasis Dalapati
- Re: Adjacency index Debasis Dalapati
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Re: Adjacency index Art Berggreen
- Re: Adjacency index Debasis Dalapati
- Re: Adjacency index saperia
- Re: Adjacency index saperia