tis 2009-11-03 klockan 17:25 +1300 skrev Amos Jeffries:
> > MIB numbering should never change. Old numbers may cease to exists when
> > their data sources go away and new number appear as new info gets
> > published, but existing numbering should not change...
>
> Converting IPv4 address fields to IPv6+IPv4 shared trees...
>
> The client info table had cacheClientAddressType added as .1,
> cacheClientAddress shuffled to .2
> ... which bumped all cacheClient* from .N to .N+1
>
> The peering table had cachePeerIndex added as .1 and
> cacheClientAddressType added as .2
> ... which bumped all cachePeer* from .N to .N+2
Ugh.. that needs to be redone. The new field needs to be added after the
other ones.
It is not permissible to renumber existing MIB entries like this, or to
reuse a old MIB entry for other purpose.
I'll file a bug on that so it's not forgotten.
Regards
Henrik
Received on Mon Nov 09 2009 - 00:27:23 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Nov 09 2009 - 12:00:03 MST