On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Bill Fenner wrote: > >3.) MIB changes that appear either to be gratuitous (replacing > >ipRouteDiscards with inetCidrRouteDiscards) or erroneous > >(not providing inetCidrRouteNumber) and which are inconsistent > >with the text of Section 8. > > The IP-MIB revision (draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-update-01.txt) deprecates > ipRouteDiscards and ipv6DiscardedRoutes in favor of inetCidrRouteDiscards. > The thought was that you can't tell whether an ipRouteDiscards counts > v4-only (as it would if a system implemented RFC2011+2465) or both, so > it's better to define a new object with well defined semantics. If we > decide that's not a good justification, we should remove > inetCidrRouteDiscards and un-deprecate ipRouteDiscards in 2011-update.
OK, I can see that there was a reason, but it was not obvious from reading 2096-update. Personally, I can't see any reason why separate route table discard counters should be needed -- there was never an IPv6-specific forwarding table MIB analogous to 2465 and 2466, was there? -- and IN the interest of least disruption I'd advocate removal of inetCidrRouteDiscards and un-deprecation of ipRoutingDiscards [note the spelling :-( ]. However, if the WG consensus is that this constitutes a semantic change from past practice (owing to combined 2011+2465 deployment) and wants inetCidrRouteDiscards to remain, then I request that (a) some text be put into 2096 update explaining why it is there and (b) that the DESCRIPTION of ipRoutingDiscards be clarified in 2011-update to specify that it counts only discarded routes with UPv4 destination addresses (that is not really clear from reading 2011-update). //cmh -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
