All,
Apologies for the repeat email. This should be a Last Call comment.
The management specification for ONUs, ITU-T G.988 (OMCI), defines a managed
entity for Ethernet Extended PM in clause 9.3.34. A subset of those counters
includes the following:
Frames 64 octets: The total number of received frames (including bad frames)
that were 64 octets long, excluding framing bits, but including FCS. (R)
(mandatory) (8 bytes)
Frames 65 to 127 octets: The total number of received frames (including bad
frames) that were 65..127 octets long, excluding framing bits but including
FCS. (R) (mandatory) (8 bytes)
Frames 128 to 255 octets: The total number of frames (including bad frames)
received that were 128..255 octets long, excluding framing bits but including
FCS. (R) (mandatory) (8 bytes)
Frames 256 to 511 octets: The total number of frames (including bad frames)
received that were 256..511 octets long, excluding framing bits but including
FCS. (R) (mandatory) (8 bytes)
Frames 512 to 1023 octets: The total number of frames (including bad frames)
received that were 512..1023 octets long, excluding framing bits but including
FCS. (R) (mandatory) (8 bytes)
Frames 1024 to 1518 octets: The total number of frames (including bad frames)
received that were 1024..1518 octets long, excluding framing bits but including
FCS. (R) (mandatory) (8 bytes)
These were taken from the histogram counters in the RMON-MIB.
etherStatsPkts64Octets Counter32,
etherStatsPkts65to127Octets Counter32,
etherStatsPkts128to255Octets Counter32,
etherStatsPkts256to511Octets Counter32,
etherStatsPkts512to1023Octets Counter32,
etherStatsPkts1024to1518Octets Counter32,
Looking back through the list archive, I see some discussions where IEEE
decided to model the counters from the RMON-MIB that corresponded with managed
objects in 802.3 while leaving the remainder of the etherStats to IETF. In the
earlier work on the interface extension models, there were some discussions
about adding these but, at the time, it was pushed to future work as to not
block progress on the draft. Is there still interest in adding these? I know
that the interface extensions models are in WGLC, so the timing of this
question is unfortunately the same as it was before.
Best regards,
Joey
General Business
-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 5:02 PM
To: NETMOD Group <[email protected]>
Cc: NetMod WG Chairs <[email protected]>
Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-14 AND
draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-11
All,
This starts working group last call on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model/
Note: the IPR call is running in parallel with this LC as no IPR was previously
disclosed.
The working group last call ends on October 1st.
Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.
Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready
for publication", are welcome!
This is useful and important, even from authors.
Thank you,
Lou (Co-Chair & doc Shepherd)
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
