RE: 32-bit and 64-bit counters (fwd)

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

I disagree... That is a whole different problem space
with quite different attributes.

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins@dsperkins.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 20:46
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: 'ietfdbh@comcast.net'; 'C. M. Heard'; 'Mreview (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: 32-bit and 64-bit counters (fwd)
> 
> 
> HI,
> 
> Sounds like a NAT and IPv4 vs IPv6 discussion.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > DBH wrote:
> > > If people want to use interfaces/mib modules that require 64-bit
> > > counters, they should migrate to SMIv2-capable products. Let's NOT
> > > design snmpv1 and smiv1 solutions when there are standards already
> > > published for providing this functionality.
> > > 
> > 
> > Amen!
> > 
> > In other words, I will not support any IETF WG that wants to enhance
> > otr prolongue the life of SNMPv1. If supporter(s?) of that work
> > can convince the rest of the IETF/IESG, then so be it.
> > Lacking that... lets focus on SMIv2 and SNMPv3.
> > 
> > Bert
> > 
> Regards,
> /david t. perkins
>