Subject: RE: [Diffserv] CountActTable

From: "Kulkarni, Amol" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:25:14 -0700

I'd like to comment that the Accounting Framework does allow one to
configure accounting. It is a general framework, which can be applied to any
PIB with some small additions. 
 
We plan to come up with a draft for Diffserv Accounting based on this
framework. Although we haven't started working on it yet, it'll probably be
similar to the accounting info in the MIB.
 
In the future PIBs, I would expect accounting PRCs to be included within the
PIBs.
 
Here's a link to the accounting framework PIB:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rap-acct-fr-pib-01.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rap-acct-fr-pib-01.txt> 

-----Original Message-----
From: Iliff, Tina [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 10:03 AM
To: 'Joel M. Halpern'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [Diffserv] CountActTable

So, in other words, you are implying that a boolean value should be added to
each PIB PRC to specify whether or not to count?  I see the use; however, I
do not think it is applicable to the Diffserv PIB since a counter is not a
specific piece of QoS information.  I would recommend adding it to the
Framework PIB (for example, add a boolean value to the frwkPrcSupport PRC)
if it is added to a PIB at all.

Tina Iliff 

	BM__MailData-----Original Message----- 
From:   Joel M. Halpern [ mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
] 
Sent:   Friday, April 06, 2001 10:00 AM 
To:     [email-masked] 
Subject:        RE: [Diffserv] CountActTable 

	There are no defined implicit count actions.  The point of including
the 
actions explicitily in the MIB / Model (and presumably PIB) is that 
depending upon the particular usage intended by the administrator, one may 
want to count at different points.  The Count Actions define where counting 
is done. 

	Yours, 
Joel M. Halpern 

	At 01:45 PM 4/6/01 +0000, Iliff, Tina wrote: 

	>However, it seems logical that the count action would be implicit
and 
>therefore, does not need configuration parameters within a policy 
>set.  For example, if the Accounting Timer is set, then the PEP should 
>"turn on" its counters; otherwise, the counters are "disabled". 
> 
>Tina Iliff 
>-----Original Message-----  From:   Joel M. Halpern 
>[< mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >
mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> ]  Sent:   Wednesday, 
>April 04, 2001 12:14 PM  To:     [email-masked]  Subject:        RE: 
>[Diffserv] CountActTable 
> 
>The Count Action is a diffserv packet handling action.  Including it in 
>a  configuration causes counting to be done.  It sure seems that this 
>action ought to be configurable with the PIB, just like every other 
>Diffserv packet handling action (Meter, Mark, Drop).  Otherwise, one would 
>have to use SNMP to CONFIGURE this element in order to later use SNMP to 
>retreive the counts. 
> 
>This Action is not itself a counter that would go in an Accounting PIB, 
>or  only in an SNMP MIB. 
> 
>Yours,  Joel M. Halpern 
> 
>At 03:13 PM 4/4/01 +0000, Iliff, Tina wrote: 
> 
> >Yacine,  >  >Like I said, it is just an assumption or a guess.  Someone 
> else will have  >to answer.  The Accounting PIB may be a good place for 
> a >counter.  However, I have not taken a look at that draft in a 
> while.  >  >Tina Iliff  >-----Original Message-----  From:   Yacine El 
> Mghazli 
 >  >[<< mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> > mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>  
> lcatel.fr> mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>  >l.fr]  Sent:   Wednesday, 
> April 04, 2001 10:07 AM  To:     Iliff, 
> Tina; >[email-masked]  Subject:        Re: [Diffserv] 
> CountActTable  >  > > I am just guessing here but it makes more sense to 
> me to only have a  > count  > action in the MIB and not in the PIB.  I do 
> not consider > counting of  packets  > traversing certain datapath 
> functional elements a > piece of policy;  however,  > I do consider it as 
> part of a network nodes > management.  >  >Do you mean that counting 
> packets is only managed using SNMP ?  >  > > Tina Iliff  >  >  > 
> -----Original Message-----  > From: Yacine El  > Mghazli  > > 
> [<< mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> > mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>  
 > > mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ]  >   > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 
> 2001 7:39 AM  > To: [email-masked]  > > Subject: [Diffserv] 
> CountActTable  >  > In the lattest DS PIB :  >  > > Quoted from the 
> draft-ietf-diffserv-pib-03.txt (page 5) :  > > Action > 
> Tables  > >      A general extensible framework and examples of  > > 
> parameterization  > >      tables for Absolute Drop, Mark and Count > 
> actions.  >  > and page 11 :  > > 4.5.1.  DSCP Mark Action PRC  > > > 
> (...)  > > 4.5.2.  Absolute Drop Action  >  > So why is there no Count > 
> Action Table in the PIB ?  > However there is an CountActTable in the > 
> MIB...I feel  > confused.  >  > Thanx  >  > -- Yacine El Mghazli  >  > > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------  > 
 >  >   Alcatel R&I  >   Software and Services Strategic Program - > 
> VIPeR  >   Marcoussis, France  >   Tel  +33 1 69 63 41 87  >   Fax  +33 
> 1 > 69 63 11 69  >   [email-masked]  >  > > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------  > 
 >  >  >  > _______________________________________________  > diffserv > 
> mailing list  > [email-masked]  > > 
> << http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
<http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail>  
> man/listinfo/diffserv> http://www1.ietf.org/mailm
<http://www1.ietf.org/mailm>  > 
> an/listinfo/diffserv  > > Archive:  > > 
> <<
http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/mailli
<http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/mailli>  
> s>
http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/mailli
<http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/mailli>  
> s > 
> t.h><
http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/mai
<http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/mai>  
> l> http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/mail
<http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/mail>  > 
 >  list.h  > tml  > 
> 
>_______________________________________________  diffserv mailing 
>list  [email-masked] 
>< http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
<http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv> >
http://www1.ietf.org/mailma <http://www1.ietf.org/mailma>  
>n/listinfo/diffserv  Archive: 
><
http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist
<http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist>

>.html>
http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/mai
<http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/mai>  
>llist.html 

	_______________________________________________ 
diffserv mailing list 
[email-masked] 
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
<http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv>  
Archive:
http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.h
tml
<http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.
html>