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 PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
