[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SMIv2 Doubt



At least one index must be specified if it is a standalone table (versus
one that adds to another table via AUGMENTS).  The index clause names the
object(s) in the table (and possibly in another table for inter-table
relationships) that uniquely identify the row.  For table augmentations,
the index of the augment[ing] table is inherited from augment[ed] table.
Without one of these forms, there's no way to identify a row uniquely (you
could have two rows with entirely the same values, which isn't possible).

The order that the indexes appear determines the sort order for the table,
such that it's sorted first by the first index, then by the next index,
and so on.  (Variable-length indexes wind up being sorted by length then
by content, however).

On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Sharninder Singh-662 wrote:

> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:06:57 +0530
> From: Sharninder Singh-662 <Sharninder.Singh-662@ushacomm.co.in>
> To: mib <mibs@psg.com>
> Subject: SMIv2 Doubt
>
> hi all,
> i have written an MIB in SMIv2. I have a table in it and am not using the
> INDEX clause in it. the snmptranslate utility in net-snmp package shows the
> tree to be fine. is the INDEX clause necessary .. what is its use ? the
> definition in the rfc was a bit vague ?
>
>
> regards
> sharninder
>

--
Michael Kirkham
www.muonics.com