RE: RADEXT Issue 148 Item 6

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

Alan,

See in-line. 

Regards,

Dan

 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: aland@nitros9.org [mailto:aland@nitros9.org] On Behalf 
> Of Alan DeKok
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:53 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: RADEXT Issue 148 Item 6 
> 
> "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.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'test vector with time-dependent
specifications of input packets and output counts'?

> 
>   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.

I am sorry, no offense intended, but are you serious? Of course there
is, as with any standard. Why are we defining MIB objects at all?  

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

What MIB counters? People are using MIB counters in a zillion of ways,
from disconnecting backbone networks when networkErrors counters
thresholds are exceeded to sending congratulation messages each time the
counter of years in ageOfPerson objects advance? In both cases and in
many other fuzzy definitions leading to inconsistent implementations may
cause problems. 

> 
>   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.

Of course implementations may be different, but definitions of objects
must be clear enough exactly so that the results obtained by
implementing differently are consistent. 


> 



--
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/>