Hi Margaret and Bill,
On 05/30/02, Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > The IPv6 MIB Design Team has been meeting regularly, and > we are planning to provide updates to all four of the > drafts you have mentioned by the Yokohama draft cut-off. In draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2011-update-00.txt, ipv6InterfaceAdminStatus and ipv6InterfaceOperStatus are questionned for their usefullness. Independently controlling the adminstatus of IPv4 and IPv6 interface on a given L2 interface looks reasonable to me. Keeping IPv4 and IPv6 interface adminstatus in MIB would allow this. Further, isn't the efficiency reason not strong enough to keep the notion of operational state of IPv6 interface ? Thanks, Kind regards, Robert -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
