[Top] [All Lists]

Re: routable interfaces

To: <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: routable interfaces
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:42:49 -0500 (EST)
Cc: <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <200101162023.XAA32644@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Hello!
> > an issue. secondary addresses for example do not have counters. You have a
> > counters per ifindex only.
> Statistics has a sense only per link.
> Aliases (even not saying about "addresses") do not receive and do not send
> anything, sorry.

But packets can "appear;->" to be coming from an aliased IP. Also
packets could be addresses to a virtual address. Could it be
defined as a link from that perspective? And it seems to make sense to
keep count of such packets.
Maybe it is logical to have a physical ifindex + counters as well
as virtual ones (i,e ifindex+counter). I dont think current SNMP standards
support that; but then i am no expert there.

> > useful. It's sort of tricky if you want to generalize for all sorts if
> > tunnels etc;
> When you have set of hundred of tunnels, any trick allowing
> to put an order there loses name "trick" and acquires name
> "interface". 8)8)

Do you mean, netdevice? ;-> I have seen interface being abused to mean a
lot of things (eg the packet munging, such as routing, is refered by some
people as "interface").


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>