Re: ifNumber and its ilk considered harmful

[Mike MacFaden <mrm@riverstonenet.com>]

On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:21:42PM -0800, C. M. Heard wrote:
>> Have any recent reviews disapproved of using scalars like ifNumber?
>
>Not from me, certainly.  Indeed, I agree that the FIB counter
>inetCidrROuteNumber should be re-instated into 2096-update,
>and said so in my recent comments on the ipv6 list.  The
>inetCidrRouteTable can be HUGE (100Ks of entries), and it's
>obviously not efficient (and probably not even feasible) for
>a management station to count the number of entries by
>retrieving the whole table.

Indeed.

An alternative I proposed to Margaret was to follow the model
used in rfc2021 for HUGE tables: namely using two counters
to track inserts and deletes. 

Another thing not considered in Margaret's latest 2096 replacement
draft is that both rfc2096 and its successor are both active 
in the same agent at the same time. 

So I think ipCidrRouteNumber will apply
to both the existing and replacement table regardless, 
it will just be a count of the ipv4 routes...
 
Mike