In message <199901242201.raa17...@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, Garrett Wollman write s: ><<On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:11:12 -0800, Mike Smith <m...@smith.net.au> said: > >> Backwards compatibility is one thing, but new nodes should be named, >> not numbered. OID_AUTO is bogus because it perpetuates the numbering >> of nodes. > >Nonsense. There are plenty of contexts in which a number makes far >more sense than a name -- pretty much anything in any network stack >other than Chaosnet, for example. If any of us ever make good on the >threat of SNMP integration, having fixed numerical identifiers will be >a requirement.
BS! Yes, for systematic, programatically generated subtrees i could be an advantage implementation wise, but for the root of the subtree any anything else there is no reason to. You just look up the name once and cache the numeric OID. If anything we should get rid of as many users of the numeric OIDs as possible... -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member p...@freebsd.org "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
