RE: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mpls-vpn-mib drop counter

["Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS" <gash at att.com>]

> LEN: Amen to the above! Async notification of anomilous events,
> rather than constantly polling for them, is definately the way to
> go.

What you missed is that "constant polling" of the counter is *not* necessary, as has been pointed out several times now by several people.  Tom has it wrong on that claim.

> On a large network there is already a significant amount of
> overhead associated with provisioning, deprovisioning, and
> network modification activities. On top of which information for
> billing systems is either being pushed out of, or pulled from,
> network elements, as well as all of the queries from trouble
> shooters handling customer complaints.

Has nothing to do with the issue of counting dropped routes.

> What's not needed in this type of enviroment is another counter
> being polled on a regular basis adding to the overhead traffic.

As always, you can ignore the object if you so chose.