Re: opstat model questions

Henry Clark <hclark@near.net> Thu, 27 April 1995 11:06 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01423; 27 Apr 95 7:06 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01418; 27 Apr 95 7:06 EDT
Received: from wugate.wustl.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03117; 27 Apr 95 7:06 EDT
Received: from host (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wugate.wustl.edu (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id GAA01569; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 06:07:24 -0500
Received: from near.net (poblano.near.net [198.114.157.116]) by wugate.wustl.edu (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id GAA01502 for <oswg-l@wugate.wustl.edu>; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 06:05:01 -0500
Message-Id: <9504270704.aa28208@poblano.near.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 07:04:43 -0400
Reply-To: oswg-l@wugate.wustl.edu
X-Orig-Sender: owner-oswg-l@wugate.wustl.edu
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Henry Clark <hclark@near.net>
To: oswg-l@wugate.wustl.edu
Subject: Re: opstat model questions
In-Reply-To: <199504261826.LAA09792@desiree.teleport.com> from "Jeff Yarnell" at Apr 26, 95 11:27:40 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.1 -- ListProcessor by CREN

> 1. The Model for Common Operational Statistics draft mentions the 
> Internet Standard MIB several times.  Does this term refer to 
> MIB-II or the collection of all standard MIBs?

In general, it refers to MIB-II, although there are times it
refers to more specific MIBs, such as the T1 MIB, etc.

> 2. The discussion of metrics seems to be biased towards obtaining
> data from MIB-II, and particularly from routers.  I have a couple
> years of experience with RMON, and it seems like a natural supplier 
> of network metrics data.  Has this, or other standard MIBs been 
> considered?

At the time the original 1404 drafts were written, RMON was still
not real.  Note that in many cases we'd want more numbers (different,
or combined differently) than the basic MIBs supply (this is explained
more in 1404).

> 3. The storage format described again seems to show a bias towards
> routers.  Is there any reason that the "router-name" field couldn't
> be something more abstract like host or device since other hosts 
> on the network may supply network metrics?

This should probably be removed in the new 1404 update (it's been 
removed in the C-S draft in favor of device).

> 4. Can someone clarify the "link-name" in the storage format?

It's the name of the thing connecting one device to another, like a
T1 between two routers that you call "boston-newyork" or something
like "ethernet 0/1", or whatever makes sense in your network.

henry