[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Diffserv] CountActTable
In the framework of COPS-PR configuration, is it important to be able to
install/remove/report counters via the DiffServ PIB ? What do think people
involved with the accounting PIB ?
To my mind I hardly understand why one could not install a counter with
COPS-PR in order to monitor it by SNMP, or even to report it via COPS-PR...
I'm also interested in the reasons which made DS PIB authors remove the
CountActTable from the PIB... I guess they must have good ones !
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <email@example.com>
To: "Iliff, Tina" <Tina.Iliff@WCOM.Com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Diffserv] CountActTable
> I don't see the issue for the MIB: it does have counters and nobody is
> proposing to take them away. If you want counters in the PIB, now
> is the time to say so since there will be a new version very soon.
> The model isn't going to answer that question for you.
> > "Iliff, Tina" wrote:
> > Here are some excerpts from diffserv-model-06:
> > At the lowest level considered here, are individual functional datapath
elements, each with their own configuration parameters
> > and management counters and flags.
> > using a Counter element downstream of the Meter, it might also be used
to help in collecting data for out-of-band management
> > functions such as billing applications.
> > I find these excerpts unclear as to determining if a PIB or MIB or both
should implement a data structure to support the
> > definition of a Counter Action.
> > Tina Iliff
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 12:14 PM
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: RE: [Diffserv] CountActTable
> > The Count Action is a diffserv packet handling action.
Including it in a
> > configuration causes counting to be done. It sure seems that
> > ought to be configurable with the PIB, just like every other
> > packet handling action (Meter, Mark, Drop). Otherwise, one
would have to
> > use SNMP to CONFIGURE this element in order to later use SNMP
> > the counts.
> > This Action is not itself a counter that would go in an
Accounting PIB, or
> > only in an SNMP MIB.
> > Yours,
> > Joel M. Halpern
> > At 03:13 PM 4/4/01 +0000, Iliff, Tina wrote:
> > >Yacine,
> > >
> > >Like I said, it is just an assumption or a guess. Someone
else will have
> > >to answer. The Accounting PIB may be a good place for a
> > >counter. However, I have not taken a look at that draft in a
> > >
> > >Tina Iliff
> > >-----Original Message----- From: Yacine El Mghazli
> > >l.fr] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 10:07 AM To:
> > >firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [Diffserv]
> > >
> > > > I am just guessing here but it makes more sense to me to
only have a
> > > count > action in the MIB and not in the PIB. I do not
> > > counting of packets > traversing certain datapath
functional elements a
> > > piece of policy; however, > I do consider it as part of a
> > > management.
> > >
> > >Do you mean that counting packets is only managed using SNMP
> > >
> > > > Tina Iliff > > > -----Original Message----- > From:
> > > Mghazli >
> > >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 7:39 AM > To:
> > > Subject: [Diffserv] CountActTable > > In the lattest DS
PIB : > >
> > > Quoted from the draft-ietf-diffserv-pib-03.txt (page 5) : >
> > > Tables > > A general extensible framework and examples
> > > parameterization > > tables for Absolute Drop, Mark
> > > actions. > > and page 11 : > > 4.5.1. DSCP Mark Action
PRC > >
> > > (...) > > 4.5.2. Absolute Drop Action > > So why is
there no Count
> > > Action Table in the PIB ? > However there is an
CountActTable in the
> > > MIB...I feel > confused. > > Thanx > > -- Yacine El
Mghazli > >
> > > Alcatel R&I > Software and Services Strategic
> > > VIPeR > Marcoussis, France > Tel +33 1 69 63 41 87 >
Fax +33 1
> > > 69 63 11 69 > email@example.com > >
> diffserv mailing list