Two more DECnet questions

Art Berggreen <art@opal.acc.com> Fri, 21 August 1992 20:01 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07022; 21 Aug 92 16:01 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id ab07018; 21 Aug 92 16:01 EDT
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15837; 21 Aug 92 16:02 EDT
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA00388; Fri, 21 Aug 92 13:02:25 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA22457; Fri, 21 Aug 92 12:56:17 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA22451; Fri, 21 Aug 92 12:55:56 -0700
Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA18340; Fri, 21 Aug 92 12:55:17 -0700
Received: by opal.acc.com (4.1/SMI-4.0)id AA17542; Fri, 21 Aug 92 12:56:51 PDT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 12:56:51 PDT
From: Art Berggreen <art@opal.acc.com>
Message-Id: <9208211956.AA17542@opal.acc.com>
To: phiv-mib@pa.dec.com
Subject: Two more DECnet questions

If an implementation maintains multiple equal-cost routes to a node (L1)
or an area (L2), the current MIB definitions only allows one of those
routes to appear in the relevant tables.  Is this a problem?

Now that Token Ring (and FDDI?) encapsulation and usage is defined, should
all references to Ethernet be generalized to LAN?

Art