>>>>> C M Heard writes: Mike> I saw that when I went through the archived e-mail. Do you Mike> think that having an OCTET STRING-based policy selector (in Mike> addition to destination prefix/prefix length and next hop) as I Mike> suggested can provide the required flexibility? As far as I can Mike> see it does, although it might not be the most convenient way.
Since forwarding architectures tend to look pretty different, I guess we can't do more than using some opaque identifier - whether that is an OBJECT IDENTIFIER, an INTEGER will some smart numbering scheme (similar to SnmpSecurityModel), or an OCTET STRING does not really make a big difference to me. The problem is that mgmt applications either understand the semantics of a particular implementation or they will have to guess or ignore some rows. So from an interoperability point of view, all this is only little better than not having such an index component. Perhaps we really need a "remote operations" MIB where you just send a fragment of an IP header and you get back the next hop. ;-) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
