On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:32:48PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > (1) Update the current IPv4 TCP, UDP, IP and Forwarding > Table MIBs to be version-independent (i.e. add IPv6). > > In this choice, we would make as few changes > to those MIBs as possible, in attempt to make > the implementation of the new version-independent > MIBs as easy as possible for folks who are > adding IPv6 to an existing stack. > > This is the work that we originally started in > the IPv6 WG, based on the fact that the main > difference in these MIBs would be a transition > from IPv4 -> IPv4/IPv6, and we have several > IPv6 WG drafts out that reflect this direction. > >It is possible that we could do a combined version of these >two choices: > > - The IPv6 WG does the minimal updates to make the > current IPv4 MIBs version-independent. > - State-of-the-art MIBs are developed in other areas > and groups, as appropriate.
Doing minimal (1) updates make the most sense to me. Given the history of the IP-FORWARD-MIB: ipRouteTable, ipForwardTable, and the ipCidrRouteTable a minimalist approach might mean we have a higher probability that can get this new work to full standard. Sadly, only the ipRouteTable is at full standard (std17) and we've had mostly cidr networks since '97. I also can't think of a widely deployed device that will provide the new integrated IPv4/IPv6 mib modules that won't continue to ship the existing RFC1213, 1907,2011-13,2096 for backward compatiblity with existing management applications. Regards, Mike MacFaden -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
