Subject: new RFC2096 draft - should inetCidrRouteNextHopType still be defined?

From: Kristine Adamson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:09:36 -0500

In the November version of the new RFC2096 draft, the Revision History for
13 Jul 2002 states that the inetcidrRouteNextHopType MIB object was
removed.  But the definition of this MIB object still appears in the
November version with a STATUS of "current".  Is this MIB object still
supported to be defined in the draft?

Thanks,

Kristine Adamson
IBM Communications Server for MVS: TCP/IP Development
Internet e-mail:[email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:53:11 -0800 (PST)

> supported to be defined in the draft?

I think the dates on the revision history blocks are a little messed
up;  they are certainly out-of-sequence.  The Revision History for
27 Jun 2002 states that inetCidrRouteNextHopType was restored:

     Changes from draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc-2096-update-00.txt:

      27 Jun 2002   Added inetCidrRouteDscp index and inetCidrRouteWeight
                    object to the inetCidrRouteTable.

                    Restored inetCidrRouteNextHopType variable (may be
                    different from inetCidrRouteDestType, due to global
                    vs. non-global distinction in new InetAddress TCs).

                    Removed inetCidrRouteInstance object. Use to identify
                    a conceptual routing table is obviated by new
                    InetAddress types and inclusion of DSCP index.

                    Changed editor, moved author information to end,
                    several editorial changes.

                    Changed name to draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc-2096-update-*.txt

      13 Jul 2002   Removed inetCidrRouteNextHopType.

I also wondered of why inetCidrRouteNextHopType was needed when I
was reading the MIB module last week, but I think the reason given
in the 27 Jun 2002 revision block is correct, and that the object
really does need to be there.

//cmh

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:24:47 -0500

Sorry, I mistyped on or the other of the two revision dates...

The inetCidrRouteNextHopType is needed, because the two IP addresses
may not be the same type.  Although they both have to be the same
IP version (v4 or v6), they may have different IPv6 scopes (i.e.
one could be global and one non-global).  So, we need two different
types for the two different addresses.

Margaret