Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-04.txt>

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:54:05 -0400

Alan,

>>>The function of the pingCtlFrequency object is unclear to me.
>>>Is it the time between individual pings when retries are required?
>>>(I suspect not, because of the pingCtlTimeout object)  Or does it
>>>specify the time period between when  pingCtlProbeCount  pings
>>>(with pingCtlTimeout between each ping) is done?   Is the
>>>pingCtlFrequency object the mechanism for doing the periodic
>>>ping polling?
>>
>>Your second guess is correct. I will clarify the text.

>Not complaining about the pingCtlFrequency object, because periodic
>ping polling is something I asked for, but I recall objections to
>periodic ping polling because of it's possible mis-use and detri-
>mental effects on the network.  If others on the working group still
>have concerns about mis-use of periodic ping polling, I could align
>with the elimination of the pingCtlFrequency.  It appears the
>initiation of a ping test can be done by triggering the pingCtl-
>AdminStatus with the DISMAN-SCHEDULE-MIB, so the same effect
>could be achieved where the implementors wanted to provide this
>feature.

I believe consensus was to enable periodic test generation for the
ping and traceroute MIBs.

>>>I believe that changing the pingCtlTrapGeneration object from an
>>>INTEGER type to a BITS type would make it more versatile.
>>
>>Good suggestion. I have made the change as well to the traceroute
>>MIB. When doing this I added the following statement:
>>
>>  "The none(0) option can't be selected if any of the
>>  other BITS options are selected."

>Perhaps eliminating the bit setting for "none" would be simpler?
>Then if no bits were set, then no traps would be sent.

Agreed. I made the same change to the traceroute MIB.

Regards, Ken