[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: [ipv6mib] So, where were we?
- To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>
- Subject: Re: Fwd: [ipv6mib] So, where were we?
- From: Michael MacFaden <mrm@riverstonenet.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:08:15 -0700
- Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, mibs@ops.ietf.org, "Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, ipv6mib@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, Allison Mankin <mankin@isi.edu>, Matt Mathis <mathis@psc.edu>, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, Steve Deering <deering@cisco.com>, Bob Hinden <hinden@iprg.nokia.com>
- In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20021004121241.02bbd5a0@mail.windriver.com>
- Mail-followup-to: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>,ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, mibs@ops.ietf.org,"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, ipv6mib@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de,Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, Allison Mankin <mankin@isi.edu>,Matt Mathis <mathis@psc.edu>, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>,Steve Deering <deering@cisco.com>,Bob Hinden <hinden@iprg.nokia.com>
- References: <3D92EE70.6658017A@cisco.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20021004121241.02bbd5a0@mail.windriver.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:32:48PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> (1) Update the current IPv4 TCP, UDP, IP and Forwarding
> Table MIBs to be version-independent (i.e. add IPv6).
>
> In this choice, we would make as few changes
> to those MIBs as possible, in attempt to make
> the implementation of the new version-independent
> MIBs as easy as possible for folks who are
> adding IPv6 to an existing stack.
>
> This is the work that we originally started in
> the IPv6 WG, based on the fact that the main
> difference in these MIBs would be a transition
> from IPv4 -> IPv4/IPv6, and we have several
> IPv6 WG drafts out that reflect this direction.
>
>It is possible that we could do a combined version of these
>two choices:
>
> - The IPv6 WG does the minimal updates to make the
> current IPv4 MIBs version-independent.
> - State-of-the-art MIBs are developed in other areas
> and groups, as appropriate.
Doing minimal (1) updates make the most sense to me.
Given the history of the IP-FORWARD-MIB: ipRouteTable, ipForwardTable,
and the ipCidrRouteTable a minimalist approach might mean we
have a higher probability that can get this new work to full standard.
Sadly, only the ipRouteTable is at full standard (std17)
and we've had mostly cidr networks since '97.
I also can't think of a widely deployed device that will provide
the new integrated IPv4/IPv6 mib modules that won't continue to ship the
existing RFC1213, 1907,2011-13,2096 for backward compatiblity
with existing management applications.
Regards,
Mike MacFaden