RE: INET-Addresses not used in MPLS MIB Modules

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> Thanks Mike. How I can stand it?
> I do not know. I have been struggling with these MPLS MIB
> authors for... Oh I guess a year now. Oh well.
> Good to see it is not me.

It's not just you.

> In your comments, when you say
> > These look a lot like clones of InetAddressIPv4 and
> > InetAddressIPv6 from from RFC 3291.
> Do you mean that we do no understand why they would not just use
> those TCs instead? So in my view, they would only define:
> 
>           TeHopAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
>           TeHopAddressAS2 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
>           TeHopAddressAS4 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
>           TeHopAddressLspID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
>           TeHopAddressType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
>           TeHopAddressUnnum ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION

That's more-or-less where I was headed with that.  However, there
are times when it's not all that helpful to import relatively
small bits and pieces from elsewhere;  sometimes it's better to
be self-contained.  I'm not sure in this case, without seeing the
rest of the MIB module.  But I think I had better shut up before
I am invited to take a look.  I have a bad feeling that this a tar 
baby that I don't want to touch :-(

//cmh