Subject: [Isis-wg] About the IS Adjacency Area Address Table

From: Padma Pillay-Esnault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:53:20 -0800

Jeff

I have a couple of questions about the IS Adjacency Area Address Table
Index  as compared to
the IS Adjacency IP Address Table.

     isisISAdjAreaAddrEntry OBJECT-TYPE
         SYNTAX IsisISAdjAreaAddrEntry
         MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
         STATUS current
         DESCRIPTION
             "Each entry contains one Area Address reported by a
             neighboring Intermediate System in its IIH PDUs."
         INDEX { isisSysInstance,
                 isisCircIndex,
                 isisISAdjAreaAddrAdjIndex,     <<<<<<<<<  (1)
                 isisISAdjAreaAddress }            <<<<<<<<<   (2)
     ::= { isisISAdjAreaAddrTable 1 }

-----------

    isisISAdjIPAddrEntry OBJECT-TYPE
         SYNTAX IsisISAdjIPAddrEntry
         MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
         STATUS current
         DESCRIPTION
             "Each entry contains one IP Address reported by a
             neighboring Intermediate System in its IIH PDUs."
         INDEX { isisSysInstance,
                 isisCircIndex,
                 isisISAdjIndex,
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                 isisISAdjIPAddrAdjIndex            <<<<<<<<<<<<<
                 }
     ::= { isisISAdjIPAddrTable 1 }

 Why is it that we have the isisISAdjAreaAddrAdjIndex  I believe that
the isisISAdjIndex  could be used
 here as well ?

 We have  isisISAdjIPAddrAdjIndex for the ip addresses why not have an
index for the area addresses as well.
IMHO, this would simplify greatly the code having an index (len 1)
instead of the address (len 22)

Lastly this would make the two tables consistent.

Any light appreciated as to why they are implemented differently

Padma

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://spider.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg