Subject: IPv6 MIBs comments/questions [2nd attempt]

From: Dario Accornero <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 10:54:04 +0100

Hello,

I am working on adding support for the IPv6 MIBs to Cisco IOS.

I would like some clarifications about a few MIB objects defined in
the Internet Drafts meant to unify the IPv4 and IPv6 IP, ICMP, and
routing table MIBs. The version of the documents I am referring to
was developed by Bill Fenner and his team, and it is available at

http://www.aciri.org/fenner/mibs/v6/

Document:
http://www.aciri.org/fenner/mibs/v6/draft-ops-rfc2011-update-00.txt

Section 4 Page 7
ipv6InterfaceEffectiveMtu: I assume the MTU is related to the whole
packet, and not just the payload, but I would like to make sure.

Section 4 Page 9
ipv6InterfaceIdentifierLength: The reason for the existence of this
field should be clearly stated, e.g. in what case could we have an
interface identifier length different from 64 bits?
I suggest that we get rid of this object as it doesn't seem useful.

Section 4 Page 16
ipAddressPrefixEntry: The purpose of this object and the related
table is not clear. Assuming that we still wish to include it in
the new MIBs, please consider the comment below.

Section 4 Page 17
ipAddressPrefixOrigin: Besides DHCP and router advertisements,
are there any plans to include other possible sources?
An example would be AAA: should we include this in "other(1)"?
Could anyone provide another example of the wellknown origin for
IPv6 prefixes? The only available example is for IPv4 autoconfig.

Section 4 Page 20
ipAddressType: The lack of a multicast type should be clarified.
I suggest that we include multicast in this object: interfaces are
likely to have multicast addresses configured and we could include
them in the table, therefore creating the need for a multicast type.

Section 4 Page 20
ipAddressOrigin: The lack of an origin identifier for multicast
is unclear. Could anyone please elaborate on this issue?

Section 4 Page 22
inetNetToMediaTable: I would like to make sure that our own
interfaces, besides Neighbor Discovery information, should be
included in this table. This seems to be the case.

Document:
http://www.aciri.org/fenner/mibs/v6/draft-ops-rfc2096-update-00.txt

Section 4 Page 4
inetCidrRouteEntry: It is unclear why there is no scope information
in this object. It would be useful to include scope information in
this table, besides what is already available in ipv6ScopeIdTable.
I suggest that we include scopes in this object.

Thank you very much,
-- 
Dario Accornero - IOS Europe Development - IPv6 Team
Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UK - voice +44 20 8756 6268
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:37:18 -0700

List test, please ignore.

Bob