Subject: Re: disman issue REMOPS-6

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:06:49 -0400

Dave,

>> > >    PingCtlEntry ::=
>> > >       SEQUENCE {
>> >
>> > Why are there traceRouteCtlSourceAddress and traceRouteCtlIfIndex
>> > objects, but not pingCtlSourceAddress and pingCtlIfIndex objects?
>> > I can imagine that they'd be useful for similar reasons.  For
>> > example the RTT seen by pings may depend on which source interface
>> > is used, and whether or not the remote system responds to pings
>> > may depend on the source IP address (e.g. whether it has any route
>> > to it).

>> So perhaps does traceRouteCtlByPassRouteTable. I can add these objects
>> to a ping entry, however I have always viewed traceroute as a more
>> sophisticated form of ping and don't think ping needs to have all of the
>> options that traceroute provides. This is true by the way on most versions
>> of the commands that I have seen.

>I don't disagree with that, but if you're interested in (say)
>monitoring RTT over time, you may not want the extra overhead
>or time of traceroute.  One option would be to put them in
>a separate conformance group if you feel strongly that many
>implementations would not want them.

I have added three new objects: pingCtlSourceAddress, pingCtlIfIndex,
and pingCtlByPassRouteTable. Then added:

        OBJECT pingCtlByPassRouteTable
        MIN-ACCESS  read-only
        DESCRIPTION
            "This object is not required by implementations that are not
            capable of its implementation. The function represented by
            this object is implementable if the setsockopt SOL_SOCKET
            SO_DONTROUTE option is supported."

        OBJECT pingCtlSourceAddress
        MIN-ACCESS  read-only
        DESCRIPTION
            "This object is not required by implementations that are not
             capable of binding the send socket with a source address."

        OBJECT pingCtlIfIndex
        MIN-ACCESS  read-only
        DESCRIPTION
            "This object is not required by implementations that are not
            capable of selecting an interface to send IP packets over.
            When not supported disallow write access and return a 0 as
            the value of this object."

to the compliance section of the MIB.

Ken

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:44:23 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

Are there any objections to the proposed resolution of disman issue 
REMOPS-6?  In particular, does anyone see any problem with formulating
capabilities in terms of the sockets API?

I think the language for the proposed pingCtlIfIndex object needs some
fine tuning, since the first sentence of the description seems to be
at odds with the second sentence.

> From [email-masked] Thu Jul  1 07:08:06 PDT 1999
> From: [email-masked]
> X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS
> To: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
> cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:06:49 -0400
> Subject: Re: disman issue REMOPS-6
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> 
> 
> Dave,
> 
> >> > >    PingCtlEntry ::=
> >> > >       SEQUENCE {
> >> >

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           [email-masked]     http://www.bmc.com/
 Voice: +1 408 616-3100  BMC Software, Inc.           965 Stewart Drive
 Fax:   +1 408 616-3101  Sunnyvale, California 94086  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------