Subject: Re: Standards for IP stats collection? (corrected)

From: Bora Akyol <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:56:33 -0800 (PST)

Vishal

I don't think that there are such standards for routers. I know that some
routers store such data on flash cards for later retrieval and some on
hard disks.

I would be curious to see how people are storing this data and for how
long?

Bora

On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Vishal Sharma wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
> For the TDM world, GR-253 lays out strict standards for
> the length of time that a carrier-class box should collect
> and store statistics on-board, for retrieval later. The
> number is something like 15-min intervals for 3 days.
> The purpose supposedly is that if the connection to the EMS
> dies, the box at least should allow the provider to recover
> statistics data from it.
> 
> My question is: what are similar standards (or existing
> best practices) in the IP carrier community today? How much
> statistics-related information do carriers like to have from
> IP boxes?
> What would carriers like to have?
> 
> (The only reference I could find on this was Blain Christian's
> draft 
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-christian-tewg-measurement-00.t
> xt)
> 
> Are there others? 
> Do people (read carriers) have any thoughts or suggestions or
> pointers?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Vishal
>

---

From: "Manohar Naidu Ellanti" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:14:18 -0800

It will be interesting to see if there is a need for TDM world operational
features to be carried into MPLS world.

I think the reason for 15 minutes etc PM counters for things like Severely
Errored Seconds etc was to deduce the quality of transmission line and use
this to feed into link cost. For instance realiability metric could be based
on such information for the link.

For LSPs does it really make sense ? to have TDM world operational features.
There is not even CRC or any header information to determine if MPLS packet
was received correctly. It is more at lower layers. It would be nice to see
some useful features carried forward and avoid unnecessary requirements from
GR-XXX.

-Manohar

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Bora
Akyol
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 8:57 PM
To: Vishal Sharma
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: Standards for IP stats collection? (corrected)

Vishal

Bora

---

From: "terry martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 07:30:32 -0800

RMON is the only protocol standard that dictates information collection
requirements.  That is the only IP service that is structured to collect
trend stats.  I think it is also 15 minute intervals for 3-5 days depending
on how much memory you get in the unit.

There are structure requirements for collection, type of traffic collected
and how it is presented.

Need sources- let me know

Terry Martin MS Telecommunication Engineering
Senior Consultant
[email-masked]
503-612-4422

----- Original Message -----
From: "Manohar Naidu Ellanti" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bora Akyol" <[email-masked]>; "Vishal Sharma"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>; "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 9:14 PM
Subject: RE: Standards for IP stats collection? (corrected)

---

From: "Sambasiva R. Mantha" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 14:49:39 -0600

I would like to correct a little bit regarding GR-253. The GR-253 requires 8
hours of 15-minute registers and 7 one-day registers and not 3-5 days. This
means that a SONET must have 33 15-minute registers (32 registers for previous 8
hours and 1 for current 15 minutes) and 7 1-day (previous day) registers.
I would agree with Manohar that these PM registers are an over-kill for LSPs as
they really donot contribute anything to the traffic flowing through the NE.

Sambu

---

From: Joseph Dube <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:20:21 -0500

Routers with POS interfaces usually implement the SONET-MIB ( rfc1595 or rfc2558)
which require a minimum of 4 intervals, default to 32 intervals, with a maximum of
96 intervals (24 hours) of sonet data.  This is in addition to the "current" 15
minute interval.

---

From: Steven Van den Berghe <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 10:12:27 +0100

Hi all,

As far as i know, there is currently no effort for bringing together the work
being done by various MIB-authors (including the on the list discussed RMON)
and the work done for active measurements by the IPPM-WG, into general
requirements or an architecture for performing measurements for any higher
purpose (including traffic engineering). I've tried to initiate some activity
on this with http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-svdberg-temon-00.txt
(unfortunately the server contains a version with quite some errors, so i've
attached the corrected one to this mail).

Although sub-IP area enhancements will bring quite some additional input for
the measurement issue, i've limited myself to IP-level. My feeling is, that
this might be a starting point for some general measurement architecture and
hooks should be provided to enable extensions using lower-level information.
Furthermore, the IPPM-WG is highly interested in the metrics and measurements
as they are required by other WG, so they might also be interested in this
discussion.

Best regards,
Steven

--
Steven Van den Berghe
[email-masked]
Workgroup Broadband-Networks
Department Information Technology
Ghent University - Belgium
Phone:  +32 (0)9 267 35 86 | Fax  :  +32 (0)9 267 35 99
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
I feel like a genocidal maniac when emacs asks me if I
want to kill 10789 characters.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*