Re: Adjacency index

saperia@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com Fri, 28 August 1992 15:36 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03471; 28 Aug 92 11:36 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03467; 28 Aug 92 11:36 EDT
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09367; 28 Aug 92 11:38 EDT
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA03152; Fri, 28 Aug 92 08:37:58 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA09655; Fri, 28 Aug 92 08:17:50 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA09651; Fri, 28 Aug 92 08:17:49 -0700
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA02025; Fri, 28 Aug 92 08:17:45 -0700
Received: by tcpjon.ogo.dec.com (5.57/ULTRIX-fma-071891); id AA10702; Fri, 28 Aug 92 11:20:19 -0400
Message-Id: <9208281520.AA10702@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com>
To: "John A. Shriver" <jas@proteon.com>
Cc: saperia@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com, phiv-mib@pa.dec.com
Subject: Re: Adjacency index
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Aug 92 10:56:46 EDT." <9208281456.AA18909@sonny.proteon.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 11:20:19 -0400
From: saperia@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com
X-Mts: smtp

>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.

Do you mean Circuit Index or something else.  Circuit IDs are variable length?

/jon