Subject: [Adslmib] RE: Suggested Corrections to Performance Parameters: [Comments on Ver 06 draft VDSL-LINE-MIB]

From: "Umberto Bonollo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:44:50 +1100

[Apologies if this appears twice -UB].
Hi Bob and Rajesh,

Some comments/suggestions on Ver 06 performance parameters:

1. The following are all in the 0..900 seconds range
within a 15 min interval:
vdslPerfCurr15MinLofs              HCPerfCurrentCount,
vdslPerfCurr15MinLoss              HCPerfCurrentCount,
vdslPerfCurr15MinLprs              HCPerfCurrentCount,
vdslPerfCurr15MinESs               HCPerfCurrentCount,
vdslPerfCurr15MinSESs              HCPerfCurrentCount,
vdslPerfCurr15MinUASs              HCPerfCurrentCount;

but

HCPerfCurrentCount is Counter64 (0..18446744073709551615).
Q1. Do we really need range 0..18446744073709551615 to hold
0..900 value?

2.
Also, vdslPerfCurr15MinInits is :
"Count of the line initialization attempts during this [15 min!]
interval.  This count includes both successful and
failed attempts."
Q2. Does it need such a large range for this ?
Ans2: Unsigned32 (0..65535) is probably OK.
(Remember also that Counter64's don't translate
to SMIv1, so use them sparingly.)

3. Unlike RFC 2662, the variable:
vdslPerfCurr15MinLols        HCPerfCurrentCount,
is missing in the VDSL-LINE-MIB (i.e. Loss of Link Seconds)
even though the alarm for it (Loss of Link) is defined in
in vdslCurrStatus (which is identical to adslAtucCurrStatus of RFC 2662).

Q3. Shouldn't we add: vdslPerfCurr15MinLols?

Regards,
Umberto Bonollo ([email-masked])
NEC Australia
&
Andrew Cheers
NEC Australia

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib