| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.adslmib |
| Message-ID |
<E3EF682D7E5F2549B45B68E553302B4101B12362@mucse203.eu.infineon.com> |
Infineon also has a strong interest in working on the development of a
MIB for VDSL2. We are prepared to contribute towards this by reviewing,
comments or co-authorship, as appropriate.
Regards,
Neal J. King
Infineon Technologies
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Adslmib Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3
Send Adslmib mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Adslmib digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: ADSL MIB Working Group Goals and Milestones
([email protected])
2. RE: RFC3728: vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs etc - why 64 bit
counter when valid value is 0 .. 899 (Ray, Robert)
3. RE: ADSL MIB Working Group Goals and Milestones (Umberto Bonollo)
4. Re: RE: RFC3728: vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs etc - why 64
bitcounter when valid value is 0 .. 899 (Randy Presuhn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 19:21:23 +0200
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Adslmib] ADSL MIB Working Group Goals and Milestones
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Message-ID:
<OF1E3ECBBC.EE101223-ONC22570AE.005D81A1-C22570AE.005F4BCE@ecitele.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Hi Bob,
The IETF NG xDSL MIB we just developed can be relatively easily modified
in order to support VDSL2. Once there is enough consensus in ITU-T
regarding to the VDSL2 management model and the re-charter process is
completed, it will be possible to finalize that MIB.
We have an interest in VDSL2 and are prepared to continue on as
co-authors.
Best regards,
M. Morgenstern and M. Dodge
Robert Ray
<RobertRay@pesa. To: "ADSL MIB
(E-mail)" <[email protected]>
com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: [Adslmib] ADSL
MIB Working Group Goals and Milestones
adslmib-bounces@
ietf.org
03/11/2005 16:10
Please respond
to RobertRay
Hi.
The last remaining item in our charter is:
Dec 05 Re-charter or close down
I know there has been some discussion about working on VDSL2. If enough
interest is shown (i.e. volunteers to author, comment, review, etc.),
perhaps we can move towards trying to get rechartered to pursue this
work. If you want to go this route, I urge you to speak up soon!
If not, I suggest we "go dormant" (keep the mail list up but be removed
from the list of active working groups) until the current IDs wend their
way through the RFC editor queue and then shut down.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Bob Ray
_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 11:24:21 -0600
From: "Ray, Robert" <[email protected]>
Subject: [Adslmib] RE: RFC3728: vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs etc - why 64
bit counter when valid value is 0 .. 899
To: "Ambiga Karthikeyan" <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi.
When writing that MIB, I didn't want to mix high-capacity textual
conventions with similar though 32-bit textual conventions from RFC3593.
That is, I'm a big fan of monophyly when writing software (and
specifications for same). In terms of what is "on the wire", the high
capacity data types, when encoded in asn.1, require no more bits than
their 32-bit equivalents as the significant information is an integer
value in the range 0..899.
>From a programmer's standpoint, you need not store 64 bits internally
for your counters, simply encode them for transmission that way. Hope
this helps.
Regards,
Bob Ray
________________________________
From: Ambiga Karthikeyan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 11:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Ray, Robert; [email protected]
Subject: RFC3728: vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs etc - why 64 bit counter
when valid value is 0 .. 899
Dear RFC3728 editors,
I am working on implementing Vdsl MIBs and while reviewing RFC
3728, I found that the following mib variables in
vdslPerfDataTable and vdslPerfIntervalTable defined as
HCPerfCurrentCount which is 64 bit counter.
vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs HCPerfCurrentCount,
vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLoss HCPerfCurrentCount,
vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLprs HCPerfCurrentCount,
vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLols HCPerfCurrentCount,
vdslPerfDataCurr15MinESs HCPerfCurrentCount,
vdslPerfDataCurr15MinSESs HCPerfCurrentCount,
vdslPerfDataCurr15MinUASs HCPerfCurrentCount,
vdslPerfDataCurr15MinInits HCPerfCurrentCount,
vdslPerfIntervalLofs HCPerfIntervalCount,
vdslPerfIntervalLoss HCPerfIntervalCount,
vdslPerfIntervalLprs HCPerfIntervalCount,
vdslPerfIntervalLols HCPerfIntervalCount,
vdslPerfIntervalESs HCPerfIntervalCount,
vdslPerfIntervalSESs HCPerfIntervalCount,
vdslPerfIntervalUASs HCPerfIntervalCount,
vdslPerfIntervalInits HCPerfIntervalCount
Here is the definition of one of them:
vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX HCPerfCurrentCount
UNITS "seconds"
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Count of seconds during this interval that there
was Loss of Framing."
REFERENCE "T1E1.4/2000-009R3, Part 1, common spec"
::= { vdslPerfDataEntry 12 }
>From the description, it is the number of seconds in the 15 Min
interval
which had Loss of Frame event and so it can be from 0 to 899 only. So
why do we need 64 bit counter value here ?
Am I missing something?
Thank you very much,
Ambiga
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/adslmib/attachments/20051103/515e1522/att
achment.htm
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 11:44:54 +1100
From: "Umberto Bonollo" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] ADSL MIB Working Group Goals and Milestones
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID: <000c01c5e0d8$f9fb9760$84304c93@miracle>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Bob, Menachem, Moti,
We would be happy also to continue on as co-authors for the forthcoming
VDSL2
as our interest is similar.
Regards,
Umberto Bonollo & Scott Baillie
NEC Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 4 November 2005 4:21 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Adslmib] ADSL MIB Working Group Goals and Milestones
Hi Bob,
The IETF NG xDSL MIB we just developed can be relatively easily modified
in
order to support VDSL2. Once there is enough consensus in ITU-T
regarding
to the VDSL2 management model and the re-charter process is completed,
it
will be possible to finalize that MIB.
We have an interest in VDSL2 and are prepared to continue on as
co-authors.
Best regards,
M. Morgenstern and M. Dodge
Robert Ray
<RobertRay@pesa. To: "ADSL MIB
(E-mail)"
<[email protected]>
com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: [Adslmib] ADSL
MIB
Working Group Goals and Milestones
adslmib-bounces@
ietf.org
03/11/2005 16:10
Please respond
to RobertRay
Hi.
The last remaining item in our charter is:
Dec 05 Re-charter or close down
I know there has been some discussion about working on VDSL2. If enough
interest is shown (i.e. volunteers to author, comment, review, etc.),
perhaps we can move towards trying to get rechartered to pursue this
work. If you want to go this route, I urge you to speak up soon!
If not, I suggest we "go dormant" (keep the mail list up but be removed
from the list of active working groups) until the current IDs wend their
way through the RFC editor queue and then shut down.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Bob Ray
_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 19:48:18 -0800
From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Adslmib] RE: RFC3728: vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs etc -
why 64 bitcounter when valid value is 0 .. 899
To: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <003301c5e0f2$986b3f40$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi -
> From: "Ray, Robert" <[email protected]>
> To: "Ambiga Karthikeyan" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 9:24 AM
> Subject: [Adslmib] RE: RFC3728: vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs etc - why 64
bitcounter when valid value is 0 .. 899
..
> When writing that MIB, I didn't want to mix high-capacity textual
> conventions with similar though 32-bit textual conventions from
RFC3593.
> That is, I'm a big fan of monophyly when writing software (and
> specifications for same). In terms of what is "on the wire", the high
> capacity data types, when encoded in asn.1, require no more bits than
> their 32-bit equivalents as the significant information is an integer
> value in the range 0..899.
>
> From a programmer's standpoint, you need not store 64 bits internally
> for your counters, simply encode them for transmission that way. Hope
> this helps.
...
Though I have some sympathy for this argument, I'm not able to get
the MIB review guidelines to support it, no matter how hard I squint.
Though the review guidelines relax the RFC 2578 "wrap in less than
one hour" limitation on the use of Counter64, RFC 4181 (page 16)
permits them when it "makes sense" to do so. In this particular case,
the semantics of the object strongly suggest that this shouldn't even
be a Counter type, much less Counter64. Page 15 of RFC 4181
suggests that Unsigned32 would be the correct type in this case.
Randy
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
End of Adslmib Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3
**************************************