Re: Some questions adout RFC 4293
"Sofina Kuo" <chkuo@zyxel.com.tw> Wed, 24 January 2007 07:36 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9cg2-0003dF-O8; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:36:14 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9cg0-0003bn-Td for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:36:12 -0500
Received: from 59-124-182-147.hinet-ip.hinet.net ([59.124.182.147] helo=zyadd226.zyxel.com.tw) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9caw-0003nj-W6 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:31:14 -0500
Received: from zytwfe02.ZyXEL.com ([172.23.5.50]) by smtp.zyxel.com.tw with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:31:23 +0800
Received: from zytwbe01.zyxel.com ([172.23.5.10]) by zytwfe02.ZyXEL.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:31:19 +0800
Received: from zytwfe01.ZyXEL.com ([172.23.5.5]) by zytwbe01.zyxel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:31:19 +0800
Received: from tw12012 ([172.23.17.72]) by zytwfe01.ZyXEL.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:31:18 +0800
Message-ID: <002f01c73f89$81a852b0$481117ac@tw12012>
From: Sofina Kuo <chkuo@zyxel.com.tw>
To: Sofina Kuo <chkuo@zyxel.com.tw>, ipv6@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:30:21 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jan 2007 07:31:18.0443 (UTC) FILETIME=[A332BFB0:01C73F89]
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 33cc095b503da4365ce57c727e553cf1
Cc:
Subject: Re: Some questions adout RFC 4293
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0044196203=="
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Sorry, the first question is: Some table's row state min access is read only, ex: ipv6RouterAdvertRowStatus and ipAddressRowStatus. But ipNetToPhysicalTable's ipNetToPhysicalRowStatus max-access is read-create. It doesn't describe min-access in RFC 4293. Regards, sofina ----- Original Message ----- From: Sofina Kuo To: ipv6@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:20 PM Subject: Some questions adout RFC 4293 Hi all, I have some questions about RFC4293: IP MIB: 1.Some table's row state min access is read only, ex: ipv6RouterAdvertRowStatus and ipAddressRowStatus. But ip address table's ipAddressRowStatus max-access is read-create. It doesn't describe min-access in RFC 4293. 2. fe80::/10 is well-known prefix. How about fe80::/64? I am not sure it's ipAddressPrefixOrigin should be well-know type or otherwise. 3.ipSystemStatsOutForwDatagrams Description: The number of datagrams for which this entity was not their final IP destination and for which it was successful in finding a path to their final destination. In entities that do not act as IP routers, this counter will include only those datagrams that were Source-Routed via this entity, and the Source-Route processing was successful. When tracking interface statistics, the counter of the outgoing interface is incremented for a "successfully forwarded datagram". ipSystemStatsInForwDatagrams Description: The number of input datagrams for which this entity was not their final IP destination and for which this entity attempted to find a route to forward them to that final destination. In entities that do not act as IP routers, this counter will include only those datagrams that were Source-Routed via this entity, and the Source-Route processing was successful. When tracking interface statistics, the counter of the incoming interface is incremented for" each datagram". What's the diferent between ipSystemStatsOutForwDatagrams and ipSystemStatsInForwDatagrams? Originally, I thought ipSystemStatsOutForwDatagrams = ipSystemStatsInForwDatagrams + forward failed(ex no route). Is that right? In ipSystemStatsInForwDatagrams description, it described the packet Source-Route processing should be successful. But the counter of the incoming interface is incremented for" each datagram" not successfully forwarded datagram. Thanks, Regards, sofina
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Some questions adout RFC 4293 Sofina Kuo
- Re: Some questions adout RFC 4293 Sofina Kuo