Re: Vector of Profiles MIB

Hello, 

Is there anyone in the working group who would like to comment on this issue?

At this stage I'm not looking for volunteers, I'm just trying to get a feel of how many of the working group members 
are interested that this Vector Of Profiles MIB be developed.

I would appreciate more people speaking up and sharing their opinions.

Thank you kindly,
Menachem

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 5:07 PM
To: Moti Morgenstern
Cc: [email protected]; Menachem Dodge; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB

Hi Moti,

I am well, thank you.

If the VoP MIB was to go ahead, do you see it as an extension to
RFC5650 or would it be a completely new MIB with some copy and
paste from RFC5650 to get the new MIB started.

Also, what is your feeling for the demand for such a fine grained
profile model ? In my experience at NEC we are being asked to
provide the opposite approach, ISP's want 4 or 5 service types
( i.e. bronze, silver, gold, platinum ) and most of the configuration
parameters are exactly the same because each DSLAM tends to
service just one type of customer class ( e.g. FTTH or FTTC or FTTB ).

Regards,

Scott.

---- Moti Morgenstern <[email protected]> wrote: 
> Hi Scott,
> 
> How are you?
> See my embedded answers
> 
> Moti M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:52 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Menachem Dodge
> Subject: Re: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB
> 
> Hi Menachem and Markus,
> 
> I think we should have a discussion first about the
> scope and purpose of the "Vector of Profiles MIB" proposal.
> 
> Can we please address some of the following issues :
> 
> 1. Would the new MIB cover all xDSL technologies like the
>     VDSL2 MIB does ?
> [MM] Yes. It refers to the same TR-129 and G.997.1 documents
> 
> 2. Would the new MIB cover all the parameters defined in G.997.1 ?
> [MM] No. It more-or-less arranges the configuration parameters in a different way.
> However, it does not address the status parameters, the PM parameters, alarm 
> thresholds or notifications.
> 
> 3. Would the only difference between the VDSL2 MIB and the new
>     MIB be the way templates are represented ?
> [MM] In addition to (2) above, the main issue is the way 'templates' are represented. 
> The other issue is that the 'template', which is now called 'VoP', may belong to a 
> single line. If that ('direct') mode is being utilized then the 'template' (VoP) is 
> indexed by the line's ifIndex rather than by an ordered identifier/number.    
> 
> 4. Can you state the things that the new MIB will have that the VDSL2
>     MIB does not have.
> [MM] In principle (ignoring few details) the configuration VoP is the same as what 
> we call 'template'. The differences are: The 'direct' vs. 'indirect' VoP attachment 
> methods, and better (with some compromises) division of the configuration parameters 
> into smaller, focused, profiles. There are also few minor errors (in the vdsl2 MIB) that
> are corrected in the new MIB.
> 
> 5. Can you state the things that the VDSL2 MIB has that the new
>     MIB does not have.
> [MM] First of all, we're talking about the configuration part of the vdsl2 MIB. 
> Other parts remain the same. I think the new MIB preserves the characteristics
> of the vdsl2 MIB, except for the indexing. The VoP and related profiles indices are 
> numeric rather than textual. 
> 
> 6. Is the new MIB intended for embedded use such as in DSLAMs
>     and xDSL line cards ?
> [MM] yes.
> 
> 7. Can you justify having two MIBs that do basically the same thing
>     but do it in a slightly different way ?
> [MM] There is no justification. The reason VoP was invented is because operators felt that
> TR-129 model does not divide the configuration parameters in an optimal way and that may cause
> waste of memory. The issue of 'direct' vs. 'indirect' attachment methods could also be solved 
> with the TR-129 model. Was it pleasant for the BBF to publish two management models within 
> a year or two? Certainly not.
>    
> 8. If you are a developer of xDSL equipment, what criterion would you
>     use to select one MIB or the other ?
> [MM] A very good question. There's no natural mechanism to determine, such as different ifIndex values.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Scott.
> 
> 
> ---- [email protected] wrote: 
> > on behalf of Deutsche Telekom, I am interested on that item.
> >  
> > Thanks
> > Markus
> >  
> > ________________________________
> > 
> > Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im
> > Auftrag von Menachem Dodge
> > Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2009 09:22
> > An: Menachem Dodge; '[email protected]'
> > Betreff: Re: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I haven't received any response to my email of last Monday. 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > If anyone at all, has an interest in this item of work, please speak up
> > now.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > 
> > Menachem Dodge
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> > Behalf Of Menachem Dodge
> > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 7:07 PM
> > To: '[email protected]'
> > Subject: Re: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Hello All,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > In April this year, several emails were exchanged regarding development
> > of a "Vector of Profile" MIB in accordance with the Broadband Forum
> > TR-165 Vector of Profiles document.
> > 
> > See the attached thread.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > As this issue has been raised again, I would like to see if there is an
> > interest amongst the members of the Working Group in this work.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Please share your thoughts on this issue.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > 
> > Menachem
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib