Re: DECnet MIB question (3)

Art Berggreen <> Fri, 21 August 1992 18:11 UTC

Received: from by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id ab04550; 21 Aug 92 14:11 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04546; 21 Aug 92 14:11 EDT
Received: from by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12862; 21 Aug 92 14:12 EDT
Received: by; id AA23949; Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:09:06 -0700
Received: by; id AA20808; Fri, 21 Aug 92 10:35:18 -0700
Received: by; id AA20804; Fri, 21 Aug 92 10:35:17 -0700
Received: by; id AA09630; Fri, 21 Aug 92 10:35:16 -0700
Received: by (4.1/SMI-4.0)id AA17463; Fri, 21 Aug 92 10:36:48 PDT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 10:36:48 PDT
From: Art Berggreen <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: DECnet MIB question (3)

>I am in agreement with Art regarding the concept. But, I am not sure if any
>new object is needed. Just modification of the INDEX specification to use
>the tuple ( phivAdjCircuitIndex, phivAdjNodeAddr ) should be sufficient.
>I am not clear about how the simple, single index of phivAdjCircuitIndex 
>allows for unique identification.
>(John@proteon.comcom: I didn't meant double indexing through both
>phivAdjCircuitIndex and phivAdjNodeAddr in my original question.) 
>My comment is, why keep the unique identification mechanism implementation
>dependent when it could be done through the use of existing objects in the
>table entry. Also, ( phivAdjCircuitIndex, phivAdjNodeAddr ) tuple would be
>more appropriate than ( phivAdjNodeAddr, phivAdjCircuitIndex ) tuple as
>multiple adjacencies to same node through more than one circuit would be
>relatively rare. 


I believe that the two part instance that the tuple (phivAdjCircuitIndex,
phivAdjNodeAddr) implies is what John is trying to avoid.  I'd accept the
single, unique local identifier easier if the values are not required to
be consecutive and the size can be up to 32 bits.  This would allow me to
form my unique identifiers as ( (circuit_index * 65536) + adj_addr ).
Since this a local identifier, someone else's box could use whatever they