Re: RIP-2 Addresses Links and MIB problems

[Jeffrey C Honig <[e-mail]>]

> The address of the routing neighbor is not sufficient to identify
> an unnumbered link, for two reasons. First, it is possible to have
> two links to the same neighbor; this would not distinbguish them.

How is this problem different than the one solved by OSPF fir the
ospfAddressLessIf variable indicating the interface index?  For
unnumbered links (in this case links where the local address is not
unique) you set this variable to the MIB Index of the interface.

> Second, it is possible to have an interface with no active neighbor
> at all. In that case, it is not possible to configure the interface.
> It is not possible to turn it on since, wityhout an active neighbor,
> it has no name.

Why not?  Just multicast or all-ones broadcast RIP packets to the
other side of the interface.  Maybe you can clarify, I am not dealing
with true unnumbered interfaces so I may not fully understand the
situation.

> For this reason, if unnumberedd interfaces are in view, I would suggest
> simply numbering them.

You mean assign IP addresses to them?  In my case they have IP
addresses, but they are not unique, they may be the same for multiple
P2P interfaces and up to one non-P2P (i.e. Ethernet) interfaces.
Internally I refer to them my their destination address, but those
destination addresses are not really my interface addresses so I
shouldn't report them in the MIB.  If I report the local addresses the
MIB falls apart.

Thanks.

Jeff