Subject: [pm-dir] performance metrics directorate review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-06

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:19:09 +0200

Dear all,

I reviewed http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-06, 
from a performance metric directorate point of view.

This draft doesn't contain any reference to RFC6390, but contains 
"performance metric". Hence this review was triggered. For details about 
the directorate, see 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html

Definition of Managed Objects for the  Optimized Link State Routing
Protocol version 2

Abstract

    This document defines the Management Information Base (MIB) module
    for configuring and managing the Optimized Link State Routing
    protocol version 2 (OLSRv2).  The OLSRv2-MIB module is structured
    into state information,performance metrics, and notifications.  This
    additional state and performance information is useful to
    troubleshoot problems and performance issues of the routing protocol.
    Different levels of compliance allow implementers to use smaller
    subsets of all defined objects, allowing for this MIB module to be
    deployed on more constrained routers.

Basically, all performance metrics come from this table:

    o  olsrv2InterfacePerfTable - records performance counters for each
       active OLSRv2 interface on this device. selected path to each
       destination for which any such path is known.  This table has
       AUGMENTS { nhdpInterfacePerfEntry } and as such it is indexed via
       nhdpIfIndex from the NHDP-MIB.

NHDP-MIB is RFC 6779:
    NhdpInterfacePerfEntry ::=
       SEQUENCE {
          nhdpIfHelloMessageXmits
             Counter32,
          nhdpIfHelloMessageRecvd
             Counter32,
          nhdpIfHelloMessageXmitAccumulatedSize
             Counter64,
          nhdpIfHelloMessageRecvdAccumulatedSize
             Counter64,
          nhdpIfHelloMessageTriggeredXmits
             Counter32,
          nhdpIfHelloMessagePeriodicXmits
             Counter32,
          nhdpIfHelloMessageXmitAccumulatedSymmetricNeighborCount
             Counter32,
          nhdpIfHelloMessageXmitAccumulatedHeardNeighborCount
             Counter32,
          nhdpIfHelloMessageXmitAccumulatedLostNeighborCount
             Counter32
       }

This draft contains similar objects in olsrv2InterfacePerfTable :

     Olsrv2InterfacePerfEntry ::=
        SEQUENCE {
           olsrv2IfTcMessageXmits
              Counter32,
           olsrv2IfTcMessageRecvd
              Counter32,
           olsrv2IfTcMessageXmitAccumulatedSize
              Counter64,
           olsrv2IfTcMessageRecvdAccumulatedSize
              Counter64,
           olsrv2IfTcMessageTriggeredXmits
              Counter32,
           olsrv2IfTcMessagePeriodicXmits
              Counter32,
           olsrv2IfTcMessageForwardedXmits
              Counter32,
           olsrv2IfTcMessageXmitAccumulatedMPRSelectorCount
              Counter32
        }

Personally, I don't believe that those objects should be subject to the 
RFC 6390 template definition. (Performance Metric Definition Template, 
section 5.4.4, RFC 6390).
First reason: NhdpInterfacePerfEntry, from NHDP-MIB [RFC 6779] was not 
subject to it
Second reason: these objects are not really performance metrics, but 
mainly basic monitoring objects.

Since RFC 6779 uses the term performance information (in the abstract), 
I would propose that draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib also uses this term, 
and not the "performance metric". That would avoid some confusion. 
However, keeping the olsrv2InterfacePerfTable OID name is perfectly 
fine, for consistency reason with RFC 6779.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:10:52 -0700

Benoit,

thank you very much for this review. I agree that using the term
"performance information" instead of "performance metrics" is a good
idea. We will make the change.

Best regards
Ulrich

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I reviewed http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-06, from a
> performance metric directorate point of view.
>
> "performance metric". Hence this review was triggered. For details about the
> directorate, see
>    into state information, performance metrics, and notifications.  This
> Personally, I don't believe that those objects should be subject to the RFC
> 6390 template definition. (Performance Metric Definition Template, section
> 5.4.4, RFC 6390).
> Second reason: these objects are not really performance metrics, but mainly
> basic monitoring objects.
>
> Since RFC 6779 uses the term performance information (in the abstract), I
> would propose that draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib also uses this term, and not
> the "performance metric". That would avoid some confusion. However, keeping
> the olsrv2InterfacePerfTable OID name is perfectly fine, for consistency
> reason with RFC 6779.
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>