Subject: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-01.txt

From: "Qing Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:31:58 -0800

The ipForward table included "ipForwardProto" as part of
	the index in RFC1354. 

	Why was the protocol field dropped from the index in RFC2096?

	In the new draft "inetCidrRouteProto" is not part of the 
	index for the "inetCidrRouteTable".

	Different routing protocols can insert multiple entries 
	with the same   inetCidrRouteDestType, 
	                inetCidrRouteDest,
		          inetCidrRoutePfxLen,
  			    inetCidrRouteDscp,
	 		    inetCidrRouteNextHopType,
	  		    inetCidrRouteNextHop
	but differnt route age, cost (metric1-5), and even 
	different ifIndex.

	So IMO the inetCidrRouteProto should be part of the table index
      in order to uniquely identify an entry.

	-- Qing

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------