RE: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IETF, Minneapolis
"Natale, Robert C (Bob)" <bnatale@lucent.com> Tue, 11 November 2003 06:24 UTC
Received: from mil.doit.wisc.edu (mil.doit.wisc.edu [128.104.31.31]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA08070 for <ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:24:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by mil.doit.wisc.edu with local (Exim 3.13 #1) id 1AJRaK-0006mt-00 for ipfix-list@mil.doit.wisc.edu; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:01:04 -0600
Received: from hoemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.226.163] helo=hoemail2.firewall.lucent.com) by mil.doit.wisc.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 1AJRaJ-0006mo-00 for ipfix@net.doit.wisc.edu; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:01:03 -0600
Received: from md6370exch004u.wins.lucent.com (h135-114-172-12.lucent.com [135.114.172.12]) by hoemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id hAB60xh09223 for <ipfix@net.doit.wisc.edu>; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:01:00 -0600 (CST)
Received: by md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4C4HGY8H>; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:00:59 -0500
Message-ID: <305D2EAC01C45448A7F3ECC487666F6C09B6D575@md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com>
From: "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" <bnatale@lucent.com>
To: ipfix@net.doit.wisc.edu
Subject: RE: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IETF, Minneapolis
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:00:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Sender: majordomo listserver <majordomo@mil.doit.wisc.edu>
Hi, If we're going to use "counters" and "gauges" (or their moral equivalents), then I'd recommend referring to RFC2578, Sec. 7.1.6 (for "Counter32") and 7.1.7 (for "Gauge32"), respectively, for the current normative definitions in the SNMP context...there have been some refinements since RFC1065! Cheers, BobN > -----Original Message----- > From: Tal Givoly [mailto:givoly@xacct.com] > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 6:24 PM > To: plonka@doit.wisc.edu; ipfix@net.doit.wisc.edu > Subject: RE: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IETF, > Minneapolis > > > Dave, > > Counter looks good in RFC1065, but the term "integer" that > was used in IPFIX > context is not equivalent to GAUGE. > > Integers in IPFIX context, or "Delta" value is a non-negative > integer that > is representative of the absolute difference in value of a theoretical > counter between one record and the other. I say theoretical > counter because > no counter needs to actually exist - what delta value reports > are the number > of <something> that were observed/measured since the last report. > <something> could be octets, packets, frames, time units, etc. > > I'm also unsure about the term "application wide" as although > a counter or a > gauge are common to all observers, delta values are not common to all > observers (so if an exporter/meter is sending to multiple > destinations, it > may have different delta values for each destination and there is no > commonly agreed upon, application wide, value - unless it is > imposed that > the records are identical for all recipients). > > Tal > > -----Original Message----- > From: majordomo listserver > [mailto:majordomo@mil.doit.wisc.edu]On Behalf > Of Dave Plonka > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:27 PM > To: ipfix@net.doit.wisc.edu > Cc: Tal Givoly; Benoit Claise > Subject: Re: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IETF, > Minneapolis > > > > Hi Tal, > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 01:34:54PM -0800, Tal Givoly wrote: > > Dave, > > > > > 1) Both counters and integers are needed in the > information model. > > > (Here, by integer we mean an absolute value a la SNMP.) > > > > I wasn't in the meeting, but I believe your parenthesis > should be the > > opposite. "counters" represent the SNMP-like behavior > whereas "integers" > > refers to the delta between the previous record and the > next record. I > also > > believe that the term "integer" is misleading as the > counter itself is > also > > an integer (however one that may or may not have a wrapping/overflow > > behavior). > > You're right... I see now that that is true even in SNMP, so my > parentesized qualification is insufficient. > > > Perhaps the term "delta" would more appropriate? > > OK, I'll clarify it. > > I think instead of counter and integer, we should say > "counter" and "gauge". > > These terms are defined in section 3.2.1 of RFC1065 > ("http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1065.txt"): > > 3.2.3.3. Counter > > This application-wide type represents a non-negative > integer which > monotonically increases until it reaches a maximum > value, when it > wraps around and starts increasing again from zero. This memo > specifies a maximum value of 2^32-1 (4294967295 decimal) for > counters. > > 3.2.3.4. Gauge > > This application-wide type represents a non-negative > integer, which > may increase or decrease, but which latches at a > maximum value. This > memo specifies a maximum value of 2^32-1 (4294967295 > decimal) for > gauges. > > Thanks, > Dave > > -- > plonka@doit.wisc.edu http://net.doit.wisc.edu/~plonka > ARS:N9HZF Madison, > WI > > -- > Help mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "help" > in message > body > Unsubscribe mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say > "unsubscribe ipfix" in message body > Archive http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/ > > > -- > Help mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "help" > in message body > Unsubscribe mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say > "unsubscribe ipfix" in message body > Archive http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/ > -- Help mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "help" in message body Unsubscribe mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "unsubscribe ipfix" in message body Archive http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/
- [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IETF, M… Dave Plonka
- Re: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IET… Dave Plonka
- Re: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IET… Benoit Claise
- RE: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IET… Tal Givoly
- Re: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IET… Dave Plonka
- RE: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IET… Tal Givoly
- RE: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IET… Natale, Robert C (Bob)
- Re: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IET… Benoit Claise
- Re: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IET… Nevil Brownlee
- RE: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IET… Carter Bullard
- RE: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IET… Tal Givoly
- RE: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IET… MEYER,JEFFREY D (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
- Re: [ipfix] DRAFT IPFIX meeting minutes, 58th IET… Pratap Pereira
- [ipfix] Forming consensus on IPFIX default protoc… Nevil Brownlee
- Re: [ipfix] Forming consensus on IPFIX default pr… Sebastian Zander
- Re: [ipfix] Forming consensus on IPFIX default pr… Martin Horneffer