The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Aug> msg00049



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

[PWE3] RE: MIB Question

  • From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
  • Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:48:36 +0100 (BST)
  • cc: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>, <mpls@UU.NET>, <ppvpn@ppvpn.francetelecom.com>, <pwe3@ietf.org>
  • Organization: speaking for none
  • X-no-archive: yes
  • X-Scanner: exiscan *17cnef-0001d3-00*sGBW7qqgk5I* (SECM, UniS)
  • X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-103.4 required=7.0tests=IN_REP_TO,USER_IN_WHITELISTversion=2.31
  • X-url: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/
  • X-X-Sender: eep1lw@artemis.ee.surrey.ac.uk

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, David Allan wrote:

> <snipped>
> >          The MPLS-LSR MIB does contain counters that an implementation
> > may count MTU errors:  mplsInSegmentErrors,  mplsInSegmentDiscards,
> >   mplsOutSegmentErrors, and mplsOutSegmentDiscards.  However, I do
> > agree that MTU discards are not explicitly counted.
>
> Yep, and IMHO MTU is a different thing than either true errors or
> congestion. Lumping it into another category may not be useful as path MTU
> discovery is really not an error.

no, Path MTU discovery is a broken hack depending on the reporting of
an error.

L.

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>

  • References:
    • MIB Question
      • From: "David Allan" <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>