NHRP MIB

[avri doria <[e-mail]>]

First off, apologies to you all that i am getting around to this just 
now.  It is not a valid excuse, but my life just got too hectic for me. 

Anyway, I have started making the edits which were in the loop when i
volunteered.  Two major issues contributed by Keith McCloghrie seem somewhat
open, so I figured I would float them by the group to get a direction. 

Instead of reposting all of the messages, as was requested, I have decided to
spare the volume and will list the main issues that appear to be pending.  By
and large, i am putting in the syntactic and straightforward changes (at
least those i understand). 

As i go through the indivdidual edits, I may send out some more specific
questions.  Curently, I have major edits from Keith McCloghrie, David 
Horton and from the folks at NEXEN (edits forwarded by Andy).  If anyone 
else has comments I should be dealing with, please send them in.

thanks
a.

 -----

from: [e-mail] (Keith McCloghrie)

1. re: IP centrism

> I believe we should make this MIB less IP-centric.  In particular,
> I suggest we generalize "IP address" to "internetwork layer (e.g., IP
> host) address", and "LIS" to "the set of hosts whose internetwork layer
> addresses are within a range of addresses aggregated into an internetwork
> layer routing protocol".

2. re: unnumbered interfaces

> In general, I think this MIB should ignore unnumbered interfaces,
> exactly the same as: a) the NHRP spec itself does, and b) MIB-II does.
> Unnumbered interfaces unnecssarily make it more complicated.
> (As part of the MIB effort for IPv6, they are considering whether to
> have the MIB representation of an "address" support the naming of
> unnumbered interfaces.  That's the right place to handle it, as opposed
> to in a MIB for one particular protocol like NHRP.)