FW: FW: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny

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

Since I am ready to ask the flowlabel draft to be
put on IESG agenda, are there any supporting or
dis-agreeing opinions in this team of MIB doctors.

Randy Presuhn wondered:
> >   FlowIdOrAny       TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
> >       DISPLAY-HINT "d"
> >       STATUS        current
> >       DESCRIPTION  "The flow identifier or flow lable in an IPv6
> >                     header that may be used to discriminate traffic
> >                     flows.  The value of -1 is used to indicate a
> >                     wildcard, i.e. any value.
> >                    "
> >       SYNTAX        Integer32 (-1 | 0..1048575)
> ...
> 
> Does it worry anyone else that objects defined using this TC would
> not be usable in INDEX clauses?

I have seen Andy say:
> >Does it worry anyone else that objects defined using this TC would
> >not be usable in INDEX clauses?
>
> No.  If there are any MIBs planned or in progress that want to
> create a table that would need to model a 'wildcard flow' then
> I would change my mind.  Is 1048576 a safe choice?

And Juergen said
> Randy> Does it worry anyone else that objects defined using this TC
> Randy> would not be usable in INDEX clauses?
> 
> At least we have the same limitation in the DscpOrAny definition. ;-)
> 

For now, I have left the -1 value as per below.
please respond ASAP.

Thanks,
Bert 
------------------

   IPv6FlowLabelOrAny ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
       DISPLAY-HINT  "d"
       STATUS         current
       DESCRIPTION   "The flow identifier or Flow Label in an IPv6
                      packet header that may be used to discriminate
                      traffic flows.  The value of -1 is used to
                      indicate a wildcard, i.e. any value.
                     "
       SYNTAX         Integer32 (-1 | 0..1048575)