Monday 22 October 2007 21:28, jamal wrote: > On Mon, 2007-22-10 at 15:11 +0900, Masahide NAKAMURA wrote: > > This patch introduces statistics about transformation error (or almost > > error) > > factor at packet processing for developer. > > It is not a SNMP/MIB specification from IPsec/MIPv6 but a counter > > designed from current transformation source code. > > > > Comment please. > > very nice - these stats make IPSEC a lot more usable (I will go look and > see if theres anything that i have used for debug before that you dont > have and send you mail). Two comments:
Thanks. I would like you to find too much item at my patch for the statistics, too. > 1) Since these are not MIB stats, it sounds like a good idea not to use > _MIB_ extender in the naming. Maybe something like _NOTMIB_ ;-> or > totaly leave it out. One other approach is to push these to be a MIB at > IETF since they are sensible to have. This point is one of what I want to hear comment. My patch uses "XFRM_MIB_XXX" because I found "LINUX_MIB_XXX" definition at include/linux/snmp.h for TCP extended statistics at /proc/net/netstat and it does not seem to be defined by any RFC specification. Then I feel it is not so bad to use _MIB_ for them. Maybe we have another idea to merge them into LINUX_MIB. Now we have the following candidates: (1) my patch XFRM_MIB_INHDRERROR (2) some extender XFRM_XXX_INHDRERROR (XXX is requested) (3) not-mib extender XFRM_NOTMIB_INHDRERROR (4) no extender XFRM_INHDRERROR (5) merge linux-mib LINUX_MIB_XFRMINHDRERROR Comments? > 2) Why /proc? Are you going to make these available also via netlink? Because /proc is easy to see it without any modified application. If you want the netlink interface, I can do it as the next step. Do you want it? -- Masahide NAKAMURA - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
