The ipForward table included "ipForwardProto" as part of the index in RFC1354.
Why was the protocol field dropped from the index in RFC2096? In the new draft "inetCidrRouteProto" is not part of the index for the "inetCidrRouteTable". Different routing protocols can insert multiple entries with the same inetCidrRouteDestType, inetCidrRouteDest, inetCidrRoutePfxLen, inetCidrRouteDscp, inetCidrRouteNextHopType, inetCidrRouteNextHop but differnt route age, cost (metric1-5), and even different ifIndex. So IMO the inetCidrRouteProto should be part of the table index in order to uniquely identify an entry. -- Qing -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------