Sorry, I mistyped on or the other of the two revision dates... The inetCidrRouteNextHopType is needed, because the two IP addresses may not be the same type. Although they both have to be the same IP version (v4 or v6), they may have different IPv6 scopes (i.e. one could be global and one non-global). So, we need two different types for the two different addresses.
Margaret At 11:09 AM 2/4/2003 -0500, Kristine Adamson wrote:
In the November version of the new RFC2096 draft, the Revision History for 13 Jul 2002 states that the inetcidrRouteNextHopType MIB object was removed. But the definition of this MIB object still appears in the November version with a STATUS of "current". Is this MIB object still supported to be defined in the draft? Thanks, Kristine Adamson IBM Communications Server for MVS: TCP/IP Development Internet e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
