Re: RADEXT Issue 148 Item 6

["Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org>]

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> wrote:
> What do you mean by counters being 'implementation-dependent'? Two
> different implementations will count the same thing? If so fine
> otherwise we have a problem.

  The specs do not include test vectors with time-dependent
specifications of input packets and output counts.  As a result, for
the same input packets, the values of the counters will vary across
multiple implementations.

  This issue is *not* limited to "malformed" packets.

> Consistent definition of the MIB objects leading to interoperable
> management applications is not a recommendation, but a mandatory
> requirement.

  I'm not sure what you mean by that.  There is no mandated behavior
for interpretation of the counters by a management application.  There
is no "interoperability" requirement among management applications.

  Can you give concrete examples of problems caused by different
implementations of the MIB counters?

  I ask because all implementations in use today have slightly
different implementations of the MIB counters, and I haven't heard of
any problem resulting from this.

  Alan DeKok.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>