Re: PerfHist-TC-MIB

["C. M. Heard/VVNET, Inc." <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Jeff Johnson wrote:

> I've been doing the IESG quality review on this document.  There are two
> issues which I would like to get the list(s) feedback on.
>
> 1) Currently all three TCs have a syntax of Gauge32.  IMO this implies
> certain semantics which the TCs and the underlying MIB objects do not
> possess.  I'd prefer to see these all changed to Unsigned32.  Note that
> Gauge32 and Unsigned32 are encoded identicially, so there would be no
> change to the data on the wire.

I don't understand this.  I always thought that if more that 2^32 - 1 of
the type of events counted by a PerfCurrentCount object occurred within
a 15 minute interval, then that PerfCurrentCount would be "pegged" at
2^32 - 1 (i.e., would not roll over).  Isn't this what a Gauge32 object
is supposed to do?

>
> 2) The xyzInvalidIntervals DESCRIPTION states simply "The number of
> intervals for which no valid data is available."  When an agent which
> supports 96 intervals is initially powered up, should the invalid interval
> counter be 0 or 96?  In other words, are there initially 96 intervals which
> are all invalid, or are there zero intervals?

My interpretation is that xyzValidIntervals + xyzInvalidIntervals always
sums to the number of intervals which the agent supports.  This implies
that an agent which supports 96 intervals should report a value of 0 for
xyzValidIntervals and and a value of 96 for xyzInvalidIntervals when first
powered up.  (If I got this wrong, I'd sure like to know.)

>
> thanks
> /jeff
>

Mike
--
C. M. Heard/VVNET, Inc.
[e-mail]