From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2005-05-04 12:33:28
|
Patches item #1103739, was opened at 2005-01-17 08:47 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dts12 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312694&aid=1103739&group_id=12694 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Marcus Agehall (agehall) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Fix for ipFragsOk in IP-MIB Initial Comment: The IP-MIB::IpFragsOk reported the wrong number of packets fragmented by the host. (Reported the number of fragments received?) This patch returns the correct field from the ipstats structure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Dave Shield (dts12) Date: 2005-05-04 13:33 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=88893 Unfortunately, I don't think we can safely assume that all (traditional) ipstat structures have the 'ips_fragmented' field. Can you please try the attached patch instead. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312694&aid=1103739&group_id=12694 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2005-05-06 00:16:19
|
Patches item #1103739, was opened at 2005-01-17 00:47 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by hardaker You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312694&aid=1103739&group_id=12694 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Marcus Agehall (agehall) >Assigned to: Dave Shield (dts12) Summary: Fix for ipFragsOk in IP-MIB Initial Comment: The IP-MIB::IpFragsOk reported the wrong number of packets fragmented by the host. (Reported the number of fragments received?) This patch returns the correct field from the ipstats structure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Dave Shield (dts12) Date: 2005-05-04 05:33 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=88893 Unfortunately, I don't think we can safely assume that all (traditional) ipstat structures have the 'ips_fragmented' field. Can you please try the attached patch instead. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312694&aid=1103739&group_id=12694 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2005-05-10 07:29:21
|
Patches item #1103739, was opened at 2005-01-17 09:47 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by agehall You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312694&aid=1103739&group_id=12694 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Marcus Agehall (agehall) Assigned to: Dave Shield (dts12) Summary: Fix for ipFragsOk in IP-MIB Initial Comment: The IP-MIB::IpFragsOk reported the wrong number of packets fragmented by the host. (Reported the number of fragments received?) This patch returns the correct field from the ipstats structure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Marcus Agehall (agehall) Date: 2005-05-10 09:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=233532 Perhaps you are right. I'm not sure where it can be assumed that ips_fragmented exists. However, I doubt the old implementation, ipstat.ips_fragments - (ipstat.ips_fragdropped + ipstat.ips_fragtimeout); is correct. Reading RFC-2011 IpFragOKs states "The number of IP datagrams that have been successfully fragmented at this entity." which isn't what is calculated by the formula above. As I interpret the description, IpFragOKs is supposed to count the number of outgoing datagrams that has ben fragmented while the formula seems to calculate the number of (somewhat correct) fragments received. Perhaps we should change the default to a dummy value if we cannot use ips_fragmented? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Dave Shield (dts12) Date: 2005-05-04 14:33 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=88893 Unfortunately, I don't think we can safely assume that all (traditional) ipstat structures have the 'ips_fragmented' field. Can you please try the attached patch instead. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312694&aid=1103739&group_id=12694 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2005-05-10 08:22:01
|
Patches item #1103739, was opened at 2005-01-17 08:47 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dts12 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312694&aid=1103739&group_id=12694 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Marcus Agehall (agehall) Assigned to: Dave Shield (dts12) Summary: Fix for ipFragsOk in IP-MIB Initial Comment: The IP-MIB::IpFragsOk reported the wrong number of packets fragmented by the host. (Reported the number of fragments received?) This patch returns the correct field from the ipstats structure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Dave Shield (dts12) Date: 2005-05-10 09:22 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=88893 No, you're quite right. The current code probably isn't correct, and your suggested fix is probably sensible for systems where this field is present. That's why I attached the patch, and asked you to try it out. It's basically a safer version of your patch. If it works, then we consider adding this to the code. But I'd like to hear that you've tried it out first. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Marcus Agehall (agehall) Date: 2005-05-10 08:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=233532 Perhaps you are right. I'm not sure where it can be assumed that ips_fragmented exists. However, I doubt the old implementation, ipstat.ips_fragments - (ipstat.ips_fragdropped + ipstat.ips_fragtimeout); is correct. Reading RFC-2011 IpFragOKs states "The number of IP datagrams that have been successfully fragmented at this entity." which isn't what is calculated by the formula above. As I interpret the description, IpFragOKs is supposed to count the number of outgoing datagrams that has ben fragmented while the formula seems to calculate the number of (somewhat correct) fragments received. Perhaps we should change the default to a dummy value if we cannot use ips_fragmented? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Dave Shield (dts12) Date: 2005-05-04 13:33 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=88893 Unfortunately, I don't think we can safely assume that all (traditional) ipstat structures have the 'ips_fragmented' field. Can you please try the attached patch instead. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312694&aid=1103739&group_id=12694 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2005-08-18 15:07:53
|
Patches item #1103739, was opened at 2005-01-17 03:47 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rstory You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312694&aid=1103739&group_id=12694 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None >Status: Pending Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Marcus Agehall (agehall) Assigned to: Dave Shield (dts12) Summary: Fix for ipFragsOk in IP-MIB Initial Comment: The IP-MIB::IpFragsOk reported the wrong number of packets fragmented by the host. (Reported the number of fragments received?) This patch returns the correct field from the ipstats structure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Robert Story (rstory) Date: 2005-08-18 10:18 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=76148 moved to pending to to lack of repsonse. Dave, if the patch looks safter to you, I'd say go ahead and apply it, and close this bug. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Dave Shield (dts12) Date: 2005-05-10 04:22 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=88893 No, you're quite right. The current code probably isn't correct, and your suggested fix is probably sensible for systems where this field is present. That's why I attached the patch, and asked you to try it out. It's basically a safer version of your patch. If it works, then we consider adding this to the code. But I'd like to hear that you've tried it out first. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Marcus Agehall (agehall) Date: 2005-05-10 03:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=233532 Perhaps you are right. I'm not sure where it can be assumed that ips_fragmented exists. However, I doubt the old implementation, ipstat.ips_fragments - (ipstat.ips_fragdropped + ipstat.ips_fragtimeout); is correct. Reading RFC-2011 IpFragOKs states "The number of IP datagrams that have been successfully fragmented at this entity." which isn't what is calculated by the formula above. As I interpret the description, IpFragOKs is supposed to count the number of outgoing datagrams that has ben fragmented while the formula seems to calculate the number of (somewhat correct) fragments received. Perhaps we should change the default to a dummy value if we cannot use ips_fragmented? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Dave Shield (dts12) Date: 2005-05-04 08:33 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=88893 Unfortunately, I don't think we can safely assume that all (traditional) ipstat structures have the 'ips_fragmented' field. Can you please try the attached patch instead. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312694&aid=1103739&group_id=12694 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2005-08-23 14:06:18
|
Patches item #1103739, was opened at 2005-01-17 08:47 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by dts12 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312694&aid=1103739&group_id=12694 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Accepted Priority: 5 Submitted By: Marcus Agehall (agehall) Assigned to: Dave Shield (dts12) Summary: Fix for ipFragsOk in IP-MIB Initial Comment: The IP-MIB::IpFragsOk reported the wrong number of packets fragmented by the host. (Reported the number of fragments received?) This patch returns the correct field from the ipstats structure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Dave Shield (dts12) Date: 2005-08-23 15:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=88893 Your wish is my command, Oh Master. (In your dreams, buster!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Robert Story (rstory) Date: 2005-08-18 15:18 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=76148 moved to pending to to lack of repsonse. Dave, if the patch looks safter to you, I'd say go ahead and apply it, and close this bug. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Dave Shield (dts12) Date: 2005-05-10 09:22 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=88893 No, you're quite right. The current code probably isn't correct, and your suggested fix is probably sensible for systems where this field is present. That's why I attached the patch, and asked you to try it out. It's basically a safer version of your patch. If it works, then we consider adding this to the code. But I'd like to hear that you've tried it out first. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Marcus Agehall (agehall) Date: 2005-05-10 08:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=233532 Perhaps you are right. I'm not sure where it can be assumed that ips_fragmented exists. However, I doubt the old implementation, ipstat.ips_fragments - (ipstat.ips_fragdropped + ipstat.ips_fragtimeout); is correct. Reading RFC-2011 IpFragOKs states "The number of IP datagrams that have been successfully fragmented at this entity." which isn't what is calculated by the formula above. As I interpret the description, IpFragOKs is supposed to count the number of outgoing datagrams that has ben fragmented while the formula seems to calculate the number of (somewhat correct) fragments received. Perhaps we should change the default to a dummy value if we cannot use ips_fragmented? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Dave Shield (dts12) Date: 2005-05-04 13:33 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=88893 Unfortunately, I don't think we can safely assume that all (traditional) ipstat structures have the 'ips_fragmented' field. Can you please try the attached patch instead. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312694&aid=1103739&group_id=12694 |