Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarification on 'in-pkts' definition across oc-if-ip and oc-if models #1000

Closed
suhgopin opened this issue Nov 14, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1072
Closed

Clarification on 'in-pkts' definition across oc-if-ip and oc-if models #1000

suhgopin opened this issue Nov 14, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1072
Assignees

Comments

@suhgopin
Copy link

Hello,

Could you clarify the 'in-pkts' definition across oc-if-ip and oc-if models?
Unlike oc-if.yang description of “in-pkts”, oc-if-ip.yang is not very explicit in saying it needs to include all (unicast,multicast,broadcast).

oc-if-ip.yang

/interfaces/interface/subinterfaces/subinterface/ipv4/state/counters/in-pkts

description:
The total number of IP packets received for the specified address family, including those received in error
nodetype: leaf (ro)
type: oc-yang:counter64

oc-if.yang:

/interfaces/interface/state/counters/in-pkts

description:
The total number of packets received on the interface, including all unicast, multicast, broadcast and bad packets etc.
nodetype: leaf (ro)
type: oc-yang:counter64

Should in-pkts counter under oc-if-ip.yang account all unicast, multicast and broadcast packets like in oc-if.yang model?
If yes, could you update the definitions accordingly?

Regards,
Suhas

@dplore
Copy link
Member

dplore commented Nov 14, 2023

Yes, /interfaces/interface/subinterfaces/subinterface/ipv4/state/counters/in-pkts should include all IP unicast, multicast, broadcast and bad packets.

Usually I would ask the issue reported to submit a pull request to clarify the description. But this one is so small, I'll happily do it.

@dplore dplore self-assigned this Nov 14, 2023
@suhgopin
Copy link
Author

Thank you, noted.

@dplore dplore closed this as completed Mar 12, 2024
@dplore dplore reopened this Mar 12, 2024
@dplore
Copy link
Member

dplore commented Mar 13, 2024

Fixed by #1072

@dplore dplore linked a pull request Mar 13, 2024 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants