Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 17:01:11 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: sysctl oids (was: Re: kvm question) Message-ID: <199901242201.RAA17112@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901242111.NAA05078@dingo.cdrom.com> References: <199901242110.QAA17006@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <199901242111.NAA05078@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:11:12 -0800, Mike Smith <mike@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. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901242201.RAA17112>