Re: DECnet MIB question (3) -- adjacency index
Art Berggreen <art@opal.acc.com> Fri, 21 August 1992 19:03 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05023; 21 Aug 92 15:03 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id ab05019; 21 Aug 92 15:03 EDT
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14273; 21 Aug 92 15:05 EDT
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA27082; Fri, 21 Aug 92 12:03:20 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA21467; Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:21:36 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA21463; Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:21:35 -0700
Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA12566; Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:21:31 -0700
Received: by opal.acc.com (4.1/SMI-4.0)id AA17476; Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:23:02 PDT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:23:02 -0700
From: Art Berggreen <art@opal.acc.com>
Message-Id: <9208211823.AA17476@opal.acc.com>
To: saperia@tcpjon.ogo.dec.com
Subject: Re: DECnet MIB question (3) -- adjacency index
Cc: deb@tci.bell-atl.com, phiv-mib@pa.dec.com
> >Hi, This has gotten a bit confusing for me, so I have extracted form the mib, >entered changes - Please comment on this directly. > >Is this what John/Art are suggesting: > > > phivAdjTable OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF PhivAdjEntry > ACCESS not-accessible > STATUS mandatory > DESCRIPTION > "The Adjacency Table." > ::= { adjacency 1 } > > phivAdjEntry OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX PhivAdjEntry > ACCESS not-accessible > STATUS mandatory > DESCRIPTION > "There is one entry in the table for each adjacency." >-----> INDEX { phivAdjCircuitIndex, phivAdjNodeAddr } ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'd go for this, but others seem to prefer something like: INDEX { phivAdjIndex } > ::= { phivAdjTable 1 } > > PhivAdjEntry ::= > SEQUENCE { > phivAdjCircuitIndex > INTEGER, > phivAdjNodeAddr > PhivAddr >: >:lines deleted >: > phivAdjCircuitIndex OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX INTEGER > ACCESS read-only > STATUS mandatory > DESCRIPTION >------> "A unique index value for each known adjacency." No, from its name, I think this object should be the Circuit Table Index. If we use a single part, local instance, we need a new object (maybe called phivAdjIndex) which is unique across all adjacencies. If so, I'd like to be able to give it locally meaningful structure, but externally it's just a unique INTEGER. > ::= { phivAdjEntry 1 } > > phivAdjNodeAddr OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX PhivAddr -- OCTET STRING (SIZE (2)) > ACCESS read-only > STATUS mandatory > DESCRIPTION > "The address of the adjacent node." > ::= { phivAdjEntry 2 } > >This still leaves us with no connection to the circuit over which the >adjacency occurs. We can either add circuit (as I noted yesturday) or we can >redefine phivAdjCircuitIndex to be something else (e.g., the Circuit Table >index). If we do the latter are we certain that we have under all >circumstances created unique indicies to the table? By definition, Adjacencies are formed with other nodes (defined by node ID) across a circuit (defined by circuit index). If the instance reflects that, it must be unique. On the other hand, we can use a simple index which is locally defined and guaranteed unique. >/jon Art
- Re: DECnet MIB question (3) -- adjacency index saperia
- Re: DECnet MIB question (3) -- adjacency index Art Berggreen
- Re: DECnet MIB question (3) -- adjacency index saperia
- Re: DECnet MIB question (3) -- adjacency index Art Berggreen