On 2013/09/13 09:53, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 12/09/13(Thu) 18:56, Henning Brauer wrote: > > -let snmpd (or sth else) make up ifindices just for that purpose > > That looks like the best solution to me. If a userland program want > to expose following numbers, then it probably needs to create its own > indexes anyway, even our actual in-kernel code doesn't guarantee that. > > In the end we need two different tables, one with an unique index per > interface (to avoid passing pointers in kernel) and another one with > the biggest index equals to the number of interfaces (to not confuse > snmp). IMHO we don't need these two tables in the kernel.
Having snmpd keep its own table would have another advantage: if you add interfaces, you would be able to get new "stable" index numbers by just restarting snmpd, allowing you to update index numbers in monitoring systems without rebooting the kernel.
