[snip] > > > > Since it's not mandatory, do many MIB authors opt to add a > read-only > > conformance? In other words, is it common practice? > > > > Yes, it is common practice.
Then we will follow doctor's advice ;-) > > > >> > >> b) some of the indexes use InterfaceIndex from the IF-MIB. > >> The counters > >> in these tables "might" be related to the > ifCounterDiscontinuityTime > >> object. > >> More discussion on these tables would be helpful to > determine if this > >> is so. > > > > The ifCounterDiscontinuityTime does not apply to the counters > > associated with OSPFv3 interfaces. > > > > Okay. I do have a couple more questions, is there a > one-to-one mapping between an OSPFv3 Interface and an IPv6 interface? > If so, then do the DiscontinuityTimeObjects in RFC4293 apply > to OSPFv3 interfaces as well? There is a one-to-one relationship for non-virtual interfaces, but the OSPFv3 interface should survive a recycling of the lower layer interface, that is, recycling of the lower layer interface should not cause an OSPFv3 interface to clear its SNMP counters. > > More generally, does the IP-MIB in RFC4293 need to be > populated prior to this MIB? In general, there should be a corresponding entry in the ipv6InterfaceTable from the IP-MIB for non-virtual OSPFv3 interfaces, but I think the dependency of the configuration of an OSPFv3 interface upon the configuration of an IPv6 interface would be implementation specific. Thanks. -Dan > > -Joan > > > > >> > >> In essence, more Discontinuity objects may NOT be > beneficial, and so > >> would like to discuss a) and b) above before making that > >> determination. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -Joan > >> > > [snip to end] > > > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
