> On 19 Jul 2019, at 16:29, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, authors. I’ve been reading through the drafts to be presented at IETF > 105, and I just got through this draft. > > I have some questions on the ietf-mud-reporter model. Would this model be > implemented on the MUD controller?
Yes. > Would it not make sense for these report nodes to be “config false” as they > are mainly used to provide statistics to the collector. Not sure what you mean. > > I see you’re using a 32-bit int for the drop-count. Would it not make sense > to make this a 64-bit counter instead? Yeah, this number should be low, but > if something goes crazy, having a larger field space might be useful. It’s a lot of drops. Let’s talk about scaling this because there are a great many. Eliot > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
