I have a comment to make about the if_oper_status routine and similar lookup routines. Basically, you want to use a hash, as it makes things much easier to maintain.

BEGIN {
  my %oper = (
    0 => 'NON_OPERATIONAL',
    1 => 'UNREACHABLE',
    2 => 'DISCONNECTED',
    3 => 'CONNECTING',
    4 => 'AND_SO_ON',
  );

  sub if_oper_status {
    my $status = shift;
    $oper{$status} || "UNKNOWN($status)";
  }
}
[download]

From there, it might be worthwhile to factor the different lookup routines into a single one, to which you pass the status code along with the hash that represents the text representation.

BEGIN {
  my %_status_oper = (
    0 => 'NON_OPERATIONAL',
    1 => 'UNREACHABLE',
    2 => 'DISCONNECTED',
    3 => 'CONNECTING',
    4 => 'AND_SO_ON',
  );

  my %_status_admin = (
    0 => 'UP',
    1 => 'DOWN',
    2 => 'TESTING',
  );

  sub _if_status {
    my $status = shift;
    my $text   = shift;
    $text->{$status} || "UNKNOWN($status)";
  }

  sub if_oper_status  { _if_status( @_, \%_status_oper ) }
  sub if_admin_status { _if_status( @_, \%_status_admin ) }
}

printf "           Admin status:%s Oper status:%s\n", 
   if_admin_status($struct{dwAdminStatus}), 
   if_oper_status($struct{dwOperStatus});
[download]

The idea I want to show is that all you have to do in this scenario is add another line to a hash and you're done. If you can modify a program simply by changing data structures you stand a better chance of not introducing bugs than if you have to change code.

Note that the above code would be a perfect use for using the &func method of calling a subroutine, because we want to pass the passed-in arguments down to the child routine without even looking at them. But when I wrote it that way it looked odd, as if I'd forgotten to pass a parameter, which only comforts me in my belief that the &func calling method is to be proscribed.

print@_{sort keys %_},$/if%_=split//,'= & *a?b:e\f/h^h!j+n,o@o;r$s-t%t#u'