Re: Table idices
Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com> Thu, 27 March 1997 18:39 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa01245; 27 Mar 97 13:39 EST
Received: from portal.ex.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17406; 27 Mar 97 13:39 EST
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id NAA29942 for snmpv2-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:28:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <199703271833.KAA22598@foxhound.cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Table idices
To: John Leonard <jleonard@mail1.wireless.tellabs.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 10:33:15 -0800
Cc: snmpv2@tis.com, snmp@lists.psi.com
In-Reply-To: <19970327175904927.AAA169@jleonard.wireless.tellabs.com> from "John Leonard" at Mar 27, 97 01:01:18 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-snmpv2@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
> Is there any SNMP or SNMPv2 RFC that comes out and states that INTEGER > table indices can't take the value 0? I know that there is a *very* strong > convention that they not use 0, but is this actually forbidden? It's not forbidden. The convention is specifically for "small arbitrary" integers (e.g., ifIndex) are non-negative, not for meaningful integer values. Keith.
- Table idices John Leonard
- Re: Table idices Keith McCloghrie
- Re: Table idices Randy Presuhn
- Re: Table idices Bob Stewart
- RE: Table idices David Perkins
- Re: Table idices John Leonard