Re: My comments on the IP over X.25 MIB

[Andy Malis <[e-mail]>]

Dean,

> Should we record the time of the last translation failure?

Sounds good to me.

> Should we record Q-bit failures on a Per PLE (interface) basis and 
> record the remote address rather than keep a per peer counter?  

Can we do both?  If not, then you make a good case for doing it
by interface.

> Should we record the time of the last Q bit failure?  

Sure.

> Should minimum open, idle, and hold down timers be kept on a per 
> PLE (interface) or per peer basis?  Per Peer allows control of 
> different values for different remote peers but requires more 
> memory to hold all the different values.

Not to mention more configuration work.  However, if (for
example) you know you're crossing an X.75 boundary to reach a
particular destination, then different timers would be nice, if
not necessary, in some cases.

> Should we record failures on a per system basis rather than a per 
> interface table?  Rather than having everthing per interface we 
> could make it global to the system; this might reduce the number of 
> objects required.  

I don't like this, unless you can give a more concrete proposal.

Andy