RE: MIBs for ITU-T G.Bond and T1E1 M2DSL projects

Bob,

I see 2 alternatives:
We could however specify a common MIB with an overview of the G.Bond/M2DSL
and common stuff like Discovery (even though it is not specified in the ATM
track) and Aggregation, similar to the EFM-CU-MIB. And then each track will
have it's own MIB for the specific stuff, e.g. FEC configuration and Service
configuration for the TDIM etc.
An alternative would be to include everything in a single MIB and use
compliancy statements to specify groups specific to each method. The
resulting MIB would be huge and hard to navigate.

My personal preference is the 1st option, i.e. common MIB and 3 additional
MIBs per each method.

Regards,
-Edward

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Ray [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 05:18 PM
> To: Edward Beili; adslmib mail list
> Cc: '[email protected]'
> Subject: Re: [Adslmib] MIBs for ITU-T G.Bond and T1E1 M2DSL projects
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 11:54, Edward Beili wrote:
> > Dear members of ADSLMIB group,
> > 
> > I would like to start working on the MIBs for the ITU-T G.Bond
> > and T1E1 M2DSL projects (please read my original letter at the
> > bottom of this mail for a short description of these projects).
> >  
> > Dan Romascanu has suggested your working group as the most 
> > fitting to host such MIBs. I would appreciate your opinion on 
> > that matter. At the very least please indicate if you would be
> > interested to participate in the work on those MIBs. 
> >  
> > Regards,
> > -Edward Beili
> > Actelis Networks
> >  
> 
> FWIW, I agree.  I keep looking at g.shdsl.bis and it is obvious
> what is going on; very much related.  
> 
> 	2 wires -> 4 wires -> 8 wires -> ????
> 
> I wonder if, instead of having three mibs, you/we instead devise 
> a generic mapping scheme; a level of indirection.  Do you have an
> initial feel if such an approach would work?  Does something based
> upon the ifStack approach work here?
> 
> Bob Ray
> 
>