Re: RFC3276 interpretation - line rate in 4-wire mode

Bob Ray,

On 09, Oct 2003, I asked about modifications to RFC 3276 in support for 
G.shdsl.bis. If you are going to open up this MIB for modifications, 
please, please consider support for G.shdsl.bis. The following is a copy 
of the 09, Oct 2003 email. I think some things that were provisional 
when I send the original email have now been decided.

I think the issues are with line rates which it looks like you are going 
to address and with the addition of a third and fourth wire pair.

**** BEGIN COPY ****

The ITU has a Temporary Document, DC-R15, April 2003, out for
G.shdsl.bis. It looks like some MIB objects in the HDSL2-SHDSL-LINE-MIB,
RFC 3276, may need to be updated to support G.sdhsl.bis. From the ITU
document, it looks like the changes needed in the MIB would be to
support M-pair Mode where M is up to four of wire pairs and an increased
line rate. The increased line rate is a bit of a sticking point in that
the ITU document does not define a upper limit on the Line Rate as the
"**max** " and "** max n**" provisional numbers are in use.

It appears that the following in the MIB would need to be modified to
support G.shdsl.bis:

1. Hdsl2ShdslWirePair TC - Needs to have wirePair3(3) and wirePair4(4)enumerations added.
2. hdsl2ShdslSpanConfWireInterface - Needs to have sixWire(3) and eightWire(4) added.
3. hdsl2ShdslStatusMaxAttainableLineRate  - See Max Line Rate Comment below.
4. hdsl2ShdslStatusActualLineRate         - See Max Line Rate Comment below.
5. hdsl2ShdslSpanConfMinLineRate          - See Max Line Rate Comment below.
6. hdsl2ShdslSpanConfMaxLineRate          - See Max Line Rate Comment below.


Max Line Rate Comment
Given that an absolute upper limit in the line rate has not be nailed
down, initial chip sets are likely to support different max rates. Would
it be possible to remove the range limit on the Unsigned32 syntax for
all v objects?


Thoughts?

Is there anything in the works for MIB supporting G.shdsl.bis? Chip sets
are becoming available and products will be following shortly. If there
is anything that I can do: edit, propose, discuss, anything, please let
me know.

Best Regards,
Clay Sikes


**** END COPY ****

Thanks for considering this!

Best Regards,
Clay Sikes



bob ray wrote:

>Looks like a revision is in order, although it will only
>require changing 4 numbers.  The greater effort will be
>converting all the text back to draft form... I'm sure
>there will be other changes (references, etc.) that will
>creep in.
>
>Anyone else have a comment?
>
>Bob Ray
>
>On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 01:42, Matt Beanland wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>> 
>>
>>We have a 4-wire implementation of SHDSL using RFC3276 and have a
>>question whether the MIB items:
>>
>> 
>>
>>hdsl2ShdslStatusMaxAttainableLineRate
>>hdsl2ShdslStatusActualLineRate
>>hdsl2ShdslSpanConfMinLineRate
>>
>>hdsl2ShdslSpanConfMaxLineRate
>>
>> 
>>
>>apply individually to all wire pairs in the SHDSL span, or are for the
>>total?
>>
>> 
>>
>>These items have a range of 0..4112000 b/s. As such, they appear to
>>lack the upper range for 4-wire operation according to ITU G.991.2
>>section E.9.2.1, which allows operation up to 2 * (36*64+8) = 4624
>>kb/s.
>>
>> 
>>
>>Thanks for any assistance,
>>
>> 
>>
>>Matt Beanland
>>
>>Extel Communications
>>399 Ferntree Gully Road, Mt Waverley, Victoria 3149, Australia
>>Ph: +613 8542 9259 Fax: +613 8542 9299
>>    
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Adslmib mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
>  
>