Re: [Disman] pingCtlDSField in remops
"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Sun, 10 July 2005 06:57 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DrVlH-0007zR-1X; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:57:59 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DrVlF-0007wT-Hc for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:57:57 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14472 for <disman@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:57:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pop-knobcone.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DrWCz-0005zW-PW for disman@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 03:26:38 -0400
Received: from h-68-166-188-152.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.166.188.152] helo=oemcomputer) by pop-knobcone.atl.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DrVl9-0001vv-00 for disman@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:57:51 -0400
Message-ID: <000801c5851d$474558c0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: disman@ietf.org
References: <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F08D121B7@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com>
Subject: Re: [Disman] pingCtlDSField in remops
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:02:03 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b22590c27682ace61775ee7b453b40d3
X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Management <disman.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/disman>
List-Post: <mailto:disman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org
Hi - > From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>; <disman@ietf.org> > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 11:12 PM > Subject: RE: [Disman] pingCtlDSField in remops > > If there is a need for a Dscp semantics only TC, why not use Dscp or > DscpOrAny from DIFFSERV-DSCP-TC (RFC 3289) which is imported by other > MIB modules. Alternatively, if the semantics covers the whole TOS > object, I would prefer to see a less Ping MIB oriented name and > semantics, that the TC could be imported for more generic TOS purposes, > like the sspmSourceProfileTOS in > http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rmonmib-sspm-mib-12.txt. ... Unfortunately, sspmSourceProfileTOS is an OBJECT-TYPE, not a TC. Randy Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: disman-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:disman-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn > Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 3:59 AM > To: disman@ietf.org > Subject: [Disman] pingCtlDSField in remops > > Hi - > > > From: "Juergen Quittek" <quittek@ccrle.nec.de> > > To: <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>; "Juergen Quittek" > > <quittek@ccrle.nec.de> > > Cc: <disman@ietf.org> > > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 4:44 PM > > Subject: Re: [Disman] Re: MIB Doctor review: > > publishdraft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-06.tx t > ... > > Here is something that should be compatible with the old definition: > > > > OLD > > pingCtlDSField OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..255) > > MAX-ACCESS read-create > > STATUS current > > DESCRIPTION > > "Specifies the value to store in the Differentiated > > Services (DS) Field in the IP packet used to > > encapsulate the ping probe. The DS Field is defined > > as the Type of Service (TOS) octet in a IPv4 header > > or as the Traffic Class octet in a IPv6 header. > > > > The value of this object must be a decimal integer > > in the range from 0 to 255. This option can be used > > to determine what effect an explicit DS Field setting > > has on a ping response. Not all values are legal or > > meaningful. A value of 0 means that the function > > represented by this option is not supported. DS Field > > usage is often not supported by IP implementations and > > not all values are supported. Refer to RFC 2474 for > > guidance on usage of this field." > > REFERENCE > > "Refer to RFC 2474 for the definition of the > > Differentiated Services Field and to RFC 1812 > > Section 5.3.2 for Type of Service (TOS)." > > DEFVAL { 0 } > > ::= { pingCtlEntry 22 } > > NEW > > pingCtlDSField OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..255) > > MAX-ACCESS read-create > > STATUS current > > DESCRIPTION > > "Specifies the value to store in the Differentiated > > Services (DS) Field in the IP packet used to > > encapsulate the ping probe. The DS Field is defined > > as the first 6 bits of the Type of Service (TOS) octet > > in the IPv4 header or as the first 6 bits of the > > Traffic Class octet in the IPv6 header, respectively. > > > > This option can be used to determine what effect an > > explicit DS Field setting has on a ping response. > > Not all values are legal or meaningful. A value of 0 > > means that the function represented by this option is > > not supported. DS Field usage is often not supported > > by IP implementations and not all values are supported. > > Refer to RFC 2474 and RFC 3260 for guidance on usage of > > this field. > > > > The value of pingCtlDSField corresponds to the value > > of the TOS octet or the Traffic Class Octet, > > respectively. This implies that it has to be divided > > by 4 (or bitwise shifted right by 2) in order to > > extract the encoded DS Field value." > > REFERENCE > > "Refer to RFC 2474 and RFC 3260 for the definition of > > the Differentiated Services Field." > > DEFVAL { 0 } > > ::= { pingCtlEntry 22 } > ... > > The added text makes it sound like this object is only about > the DSCP, rather than the entire TOS octet. I think this > matters because the two bit positions that RFC 2474 and 3260 > call "currently unused" that are in fact used by RFC 3168 for ECN. > > With perfect foresight we should have made this into two > objects, but we didn't. I think the next best thing is to > say that the six high bits go to the DSCP, and the two low > bits go to the ECN field, which would be more consistent with > this object's original definition in terms of the TOS octet, > rather than just talking about DSCPs. > > I suggest adding text and a reference to RFC 3168 for the two > low-order bits. > > Randy > > > > >
- RE: [Disman] pingCtlDSField in remops Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Disman] pingCtlDSField in remops Randy Presuhn
- RE: [Disman] pingCtlDSField in remops Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- RE: [Disman] pingCtlDSField in remops Juergen Quittek
- Re: [Disman] pingCtlDSField in remops Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Disman] pingCtlDSField in remops Andy Bierman
- RE: [Disman] pingCtlDSField in remops Romascanu, Dan (Dan)