Subject: IPv6 MIB team - new RFC2012 draft

From: Kristine Adamson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:50:18 -0400

On 7/10/2002 Margaret Wasserman appended the following to the one of the
MIB mailing lists:

   >>An issue came up when reviewing our updates to the TCP & UDP
   >>MIBs that may affect other MIBs.

   >>Due to the changes in the InetAddressType TC to define different
   >>types for global and non-global addresses, it is now necessary
   >>to include InetAddressType variables in places where they were
   >>not previously needed.

   >>To give an example:

    >>In our TCP MIB, we have a connection table indexed by
    >>a local address, a remote address and two ports.  In
    >>previous versions of the MIB, we had one InetAddressType
    >>index that was stated to apply to both addresses.

    >>However, with the new definition of InetAddressType, we
    >>need to provide two different type variables (a local
    >>address type, and a remote address type), because it is
    >>possible to have a connection between a global IPv6
    >>address and a non-global IPv6 address (for example).

 We are trying to implement the tcpConnectionTable from the June 2002
 version
 of the new RFC2012 draft but there is no tcpConnectionRemAddressType MIB
 object defined in this version of the draft.  Is this MIB object going to
 be added
 to this table?  Thanks,

 Kristine Adamson
 IBM Communications Server for MVS: TCP/IP Development
 Internet e-mail:[email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Kristine Adamson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:47:06 -0400

Rajiv,
   Thanks for the quick feedback on the tcpConnectionRemAddressType MIB
object.  Will
this new MIB object be inserted before the existing tcpConnectionRemAddress
MIB object and
will the rest of the objects in the table be renumbered?
   Also, are all 4 drafts being revised for the Nov. 4 date?  And are any
of the revised
drafts available now so we can see what kind of changes have been made
since the
June/July revisions?

Thanks,

Kristine Adamson