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 1992 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
- 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