RE: Fwd: [ipv6mib] So, where were we?

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> I suggest a better approach would be to add an attribute to each route which
> says "Incompletely specified route match - some traffic that seems to match
> this index is following some other route with additional qualifications".  
> Note that since routing technology is a moving target, this should be added to
> *all* routing MIBs for all protocols.  I would call it the "I might be lying
> flag", to make the point that it can't be ignored.
> 
Or maybe a better expression would be "Some traffic may follow a different 
route because I have more details, but this MIB does not allow me to show
that to you." Sound better, does it not?

Bert