Re: DECnet MIB question (3) -- adjacency

Art Berggreen <art@opal.acc.com> Sat, 22 August 1992 00:13 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id ab09086; 21 Aug 92 20:13 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09082; 21 Aug 92 20:13 EDT
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20224; 21 Aug 92 20:14 EDT
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA15126; Fri, 21 Aug 92 17:13:59 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA02475; Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:53:51 -0700
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA02451; Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:53:30 -0700
Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA29068; Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:52:51 -0700
Received: by opal.acc.com (4.1/SMI-4.0)id AA17632; Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:54:26 PDT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:54:26 PDT
From: Art Berggreen <art@opal.acc.com>
Message-Id: <9208212354.AA17632@opal.acc.com>
To: phiv-mib@pa.dec.com
Subject: Re: DECnet MIB question (3) -- adjacency

>
>Hmm, as I look at it harder, I start to agree (much as I don't want to
>be the person implenting it) that the INDEX should be
>{phivAdjNodeAddr, phivAdjCircuitIndex}.  It won't be the first table
>to have node addresses as indices.

If we go this route, I'd just ask to swap the order to:
    { phivAdjCircuitIndex, phivAdjNodeAddr }

so that all of the adjacencies on a circuit will group together during a
table walk.

Art