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
