Subject: Which IPv6 MIB should I use?

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 17:18:02 +0200

Hi,

I apologize if this subject has already been done to death and/or if I'm 
reopening a can of worms. If that is the case, point me in the right 
direction and I'll go away, I promise. :-)

I am a student at the university of Roma Tre in Italy and, as my thesis 
project, I am working on methods for identifying IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels on 
local and remote nodes. The ideal objective is to produce a tool, 
similar to traceroute, which can detect IPv6 in IPv4 tunnels and report 
the IPv4 hops the tunnel passes through.

e.g.:

1 fec0:1::1	1 ms
2 fec0:2::1	2 ms
	10.0.1.9
	10.123.4.1
	10.0.2.51
3 fec0:3::1	10 ms

Of the various methods possible, SNMP is potentially the one which 
provides the most complete and accurate information, so that is my 
primary focus at the moment.

However, I do not know which MIBs to use. There is the standard IPv6 MIB 
(RFC 2465), and there is the Fenner et al. IETF draft which aims to 
extend RFC 2011 in an IP version independent manner, which has since 
expired:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2011-update-00.txt

Which should I use? I could use the standard IPv6 MIB (RFC 2465), or the 
draft MIB plus the tunnel MIB. None of these seem to be implemented by 
Cisco, and net-snmp, on Linux at least, only supports the tunnel MIB and 
a very small (useless) subset of the standard IPv6 MIB.

I could try to extend net-snmp on linux, to support what I need, but 
which of the two MIBs should I implement? Which MIBs are going to be 
standard and used in the future?

Regards,
Lorenzo Colitti

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Rajiv Raghunarayan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 21:02:43 +0530

Hi Lorenzo,
 
> standard and used in the future?

The draft by Fenner et. al. updates RFC 2011, and should, in all
probability, go on to replace RFC 2465 as a version independent 
IP MIB in the future.

-Rajiv.