[dhcwg] revisions to DHCPv4 Server MIB suggested by MIB "Doctor"
"Barr Hibbs" <rbhibbs@pacbell.net> Mon, 01 March 2004 20:54 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05905 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:54:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxuQE-0001LS-E4 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:53:54 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i21KrsV5005164 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:53:54 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxuQE-0001LD-22 for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:53:54 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05880 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:53:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxuQC-0007OV-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:53:52 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxuPG-0007Iq-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:52:55 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxuOP-0007E6-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:52:01 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxuOO-0001Dp-EH; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:52:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxuOJ-0001DT-He for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:51:55 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05790 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:51:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxuOH-0007D6-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:51:54 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxuNI-00076g-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:50:52 -0500
Received: from smtp810.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.170.80]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxuMJ-0006xr-00 for DHCWG@IETF.ORG; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:49:51 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO BarrH63p601) (rbhibbs@pacbell.net@64.169.88.171 with login) by smtp810.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2004 20:49:51 -0000
Reply-To: rbhibbs@pacbell.net
From: Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
To: DHCWG@ietf.org
Cc: dbh@enterasys.com
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 12:55:26 -0800
Message-ID: <018a01c3ffcf$873a3d80$11f4a8c0@RanchoSanchez.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [dhcwg] revisions to DHCPv4 Server MIB suggested by MIB "Doctor"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
David Harrington has been assigned to work with Glenn and myself to finalize the proposed DHCPv4 server MIB ("draft-ietf-dhc-server-mib-09.txt"), making sure that it is conformant with current SNMP practice and implementable. David has proposed many improvements to the text, most of which fall into the general category of clarification, which I believe do not require WG approval to incorporate. There are at least two concerns about the proposed MIB that David has expressed which represent significant changes to the MIB. First, the two large portions of the MIB that were declared optional (BOOTP and DHCP optional statistics) and the size of counters used throughout the MIB. Dealing first with counters, the original work which led to the development of the MIB was done on a mainframe computer that supported both 32-bit and 64-bit integers, both signed and unsigned. We collected the server's statistics (actually, our primary reason for developing the MIB) at hourly intervals and even at a prolonged level of traffic in excess of 100 DHCP requests per second received from our client population, the 32-bit counters were sufficient to avoid roll-over during the data collection intervals. At issue now is whether a 32-bit counter is of sufficient size not to roll-over during likely data collection intervals on servers managing the address space for 100s of thousands of clients. If one assumes that 10,000 clients can generate 100 msgs/sec during a mass event, and that the client population is 500,000 for a very large server (5000 msgs/sec), then a 32-bit counter will roll-over in about 10 days. The appropriate questions are, "Can anyone provide better estimates of both maximum number of clients and the peak message arrival rate?" and "What is the longest interval between data collection points that can be reasonably expected?" The answers to both of these questions impact the choice of counter size. The second significant change for which I need WG concurrence is to entirely remove the two large optional sections of the MIB, BOOTP optional statistics and DHCP optional statistics. The last time the structure of the MIB was discussed at a WG meeting, the consensus was to make both sections optional as only a very few implementors or operators were interested in the traffic engineering data that these sections covered. There were no comments about this from the mailing list. Sorry I can't be in Seoul with you all to raise these issues in the meeting. --Barr _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg