Re: Question on InetAddressType

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 03:14 PM 5/13/2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>In the MPLS MIB arena, a question is coming up on a
>statement in a MODULE0-COMPLIANCE aka:
>
>    OBJECT mplsFTNAddrType
>    SYNTAX       InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) }
>    DESCRIPTION
>        "An implementation is only required to support IPv4
>         and IPv6 addresses."
>
>The question now is: what does that mean for a box that only
>supports IPv4 and not (yet) IPv6. One could write multiple
>compliance statements, but that seems a bit too much does it not.
>
>Do we consider this acceptable:
>
>    OBJECT mplsFTNAddrType
>    SYNTAX       InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) }
>    DESCRIPTION
>        "An implementation is only required to support IPv4
>         and/or IPv6 addresses. An implementation only needs to
>         support the addresses it actually supports on the box."

                      ^^^^^^^^^ address types

I think this is acceptable.  The IETF should not mandate that
devices support either IPv4 or IPv6.  The market will decide
if the product supports the right address types.  Normally
we see this subrange mandate ipv4 and omit ipv6.  This statement
above allows for the possibility that IPv6 is supported, but
not IPv4.


>Thanks,
>Bert 

Andy