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

["David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>]

HI,

I'm sorry I sent the message below. I confused the holidays
of Halloween and April 1.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> 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
> > 
> 
Regards,
/david t. perkins