> On Jul 20, 2019, at 06:46, Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > >> On 19 Jul 2019, at 16:29, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> 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 meant should these report nodes be read-only. > >> >> 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. It is, yes. But if you started to see a lot of this, you might be able to identify a compromise. Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
