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

Back to  the original question.

An example of what the TDIM MIB could include:
- Pair Discovery
- Aggregation Group provisioning
- Service Provisioning
- FEC/Interleaving provisioning
- Group Performance (error counters) and Pair Status

The system implementing G.Bond protocol would also use an appropriate xDSL
MIB corresponding to the underlying modem technology.


The latest ITU-T G.Bond drafts can be found on the ITU site:
http://ties.itu.ch/u/tsg15/sg15/wp1/q4/04-03-Millbrae/MC-040R1.zip - TDIM
http://ties.itu.ch/u/tsg15/sg15/wp1/q4/04-03-Millbrae/MC-132R1.doc - ATM
http://ties.itu.ch/u/tsg15/sg15/wp1/q4/04-03-Millbrae/MC-049R1.doc -
Ethernet
(if you are not an ITU member write to me which drafts you are interested in
and I would send it to you).

Regards,
-Edward

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sneed
To: [email protected]; Edward Beili
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: 04/03/04 22:44
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] MIBs for ITU-T G.Bond and T1E1 M2DSL projects

Before we go too far down this path, I think I should make it clear that
we 
are trying  first of all  to answer the question as to whether this work
is 
appropriate for this WG, or, more precisely, whether this WG should
charter 
the work.

Of course, in order to do that we have to have some idea as to what work

would need to be done, and Bob's discussion is on track in that arena.
I 
would personally like to understand more about what is being proposed,
and 
what MIBs might be necessary.

But we should keep in mind that this is not currently part of our
charter.  
So designing MIBs is a bit out of scope.



>From: Bob Ray <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: Edward Beili <[email protected]>
>CC: adslmib mail list <[email protected]>
>Subject: RE: [Adslmib] MIBs for ITU-T G.Bond and T1E1 M2DSL projects
>Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:49:50 -0600
>
>Alternative One would be an approach similar to what has
>been done with VDSL.  That is, breaking the line code
>specific functionality out into separate documents.
>
>My suggestion was merely tossing out the notion of
>introducing a stratifying structure where a draft would
>allow the reuse of existing efforts (i.e. dsl, ethernet,
>t1/e1, etc.) by specifying that a given "line" is actually
>composed of subordinate lines of a given ifType.
>
>For example, say the iana defines a new ifType bonded(xxx)
>(http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib), and you
>define a MIB to manage a bonded line.
>
>Using an ifStack approach (see interfaces MIB) and RFC2127
>(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2127.txt), it would appear that
>a bonded line could be defined in a single document without
>having multiple documents defined for the well-known (?)
>lower layers.
>
>For example, a fractional T1 (or E1) line can be considered a
>collection of bonded DS0s, no?  Representing this fractional
>T1 line via the ifStack table should be straightforward (and
>is done to some degree in RFC2127).
>
>Please note that the above is borne aloft solely on the soiled
>wings of my ignorance and curiosity.
>
>Regards,
>Bob Ray
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Adslmib mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/


_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib