Re: [Tsvwg] TCP and UDP MIB issues
Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Tue, 06 February 2007 16:19 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HET2R-00067o-Qr; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:19:23 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HET2R-00067D-0K for tsvwg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:19:23 -0500
Received: from [2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b] (helo=erg.abdn.ac.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HET2P-0001si-9M for tsvwg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:19:22 -0500
Received: from [139.133.207.152] (dhcp-207-152.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.207.152]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l16GJ1Os021194; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:19:01 GMT
Message-ID: <45C8AA82.9000507@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:19:14 +0000
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Aberdeen, UK
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anders Persson <anders.persson@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] TCP and UDP MIB issues
References: <45A68ABA.9070501@sun.com> <45B5E8BD.1080504@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <45BE50C2.2020306@sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <45BE50C2.2020306@sun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-ERG-MailScanner-From: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
X-ERG-MailScanner-To: anders.persson@sun.com, gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Cc: gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org
I agree these new features could be applicable to UDP-Lite, as well as UDP. The situation is only different in that we are currently seeking to standardise the first MIB for UDP-Lite (preferably simple and therefore more likely to be implemented), whereas the UDP MIB has already been widely deployed. What I do not yet know is whether the best approach is to choose one of these methods (either 2 or 3) for inclusion as an optional part of the proposed UDP-Lite MIB, or whether to await a fix (MIB extension) that could apply equally to UDP-Lite and UDP (giving more consistency). Unless people really need these features urgently for UDP-Lite, I'd suggest a consistent approach is better. Have you thought about bringing the I-D to the TSV WG for discussion at the next IETF, it is often helpful to get feedback on the best way forward from the working groups that maintain the protocols that a MIB relates to. Gorry Anders Persson wrote: > Gorry, > > The same general issue does seem to appear within the UDP-Lite MIB, > which is how to deal with multiple processes using the same UDP-Lite > endpoint. For example, on a system using sockets, you can have one > socket being shared between multiple processes if the creator of the > socket uses fork() to create child processes. However, with the current > MIB it is only possible to associate one processes with an endpoint. > > There are at least four ways this could be addressed: > (1) Use udpliteEndpointInstance to create multiple entries. > Unfortunately, this approach > makes it look like multiple independent endpoints, which might > be a bit deceiving > (2) Make udpliteEndpointProcess part of the INDEX > (3) Create a new Identifier object (like tcpEStatsConnectIdEntry), > which could then be > referenced by other tables. For example, we could then have > udpliteProcessTable > (4) Create udpliteProcessTable that mirrors the INDEX of > udpliteEndpointTable, but adds > udpliteEndpointProcess to the INDEX as well :-( > > My personal choice would be (3), as it allows the MIB to be extended in > the future. > > Cheers, > Anders > > Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > >> >> Generally, the proposed UDP-Lite MIB follows that for UDP (supporting >> both multicast and unicast). It does differ in the udpliteEndpointTable: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tsvwg/draft-renker-tsvwg-udplite-mib-01.txt >> >> If there are implications on the UDP-Lite MIB, we'd be pleased to try >> to understand what these are, and any ideas of what we should do. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Gorry >> > > >
- [Tsvwg] TCP and UDP MIB issues Anders Persson
- Re: [Tsvwg] TCP and UDP MIB issues Matt Mathis
- RE: [Tsvwg] TCP and UDP MIB issues lars.eggert
- [Tsvwg] TCP Extended Statistics MIB, and v6ops TC… Kristine Adamson
- [Tsvwg] Re: [IETFMIBS] TCP Extended Statistics MI… Kristine Adamson
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: [IETFMIBS] TCP Extended Statistic… Matt Mathis
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: [IETFMIBS] TCP Extended Statistic… Anders Persson
- [Tsvwg] Re: [IETFMIBS] TCP Extended Statistics MI… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Tsvwg] TCP and UDP MIB issues Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Tsvwg] TCP and UDP MIB issues Anders Persson
- Re: [Tsvwg] TCP and UDP MIB issues Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Tsvwg] TCP and UDP MIB issues Anders Persson