Oliver Wellnitz writes:
o stools want to be as friendly to the user as possible, hence I suggest to represent the interface column not by the ifIndex number but by the interface `name'.
Oliver> I thought about it, but did not want to mix different mibs. If Oliver> this is okay, I would also prefer the interface name.
Mixing MIBs is just fine. The general idea is to output information in a format that is easy to understand and use by humans and to organize the commands in a logical way. MIBs are just internal interfaces which networks operators should not really care about.
I have merged your patch into the CVS now. Some observations:
You wrote code to output magic TOS values (CP and TC). The comment says that the values -1 and -2 are the magic numbers to test while your code actually did test against 255 and 254. This is of course wrong. The right thing to do is to test agains -1 and -2 and to tell Frank to fix his implementation of the tunnel MIB. :-)
Another issue: Frank's tunnel MIB implementation seems to report tunnels for every interface. This is not really correct. In fact, you should only report tunnelIfEntrys for interfaces of type "tunnel". So to get this right, you probably need to dive into the interface table implementation itself...
Frank, still listenting? I could only run a single test before the tunnel MIB agent on our router blew up...
/js
-- !! This message is brought to you via the `stools' mailing list. !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To subscribe or !! unsubscribe, send a mail message to stools-request@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de. !! See http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/stools/ for more information.