Menachem,
Could you make it clearer in the liaison that the request to DSLForum
to address bonding is not in the context of WT-129? The "issue" your
text proposal refers to is that "bonding is not addressed by DSLF". The
issue is not that "bonding is not addressed in WT-129". Or did you
intentionally leave this point vague ?
Thanks,
Frank
[email protected] wrote:
Hi,
There appears
to be enough interest in the xDSL Bonding issue, and there have not
been
any objections.
Therefore, I propose the following:
1.
I will send a liaison to the DSL Forum in response to WT-129 asking
them
to address the issue of xDSL Bonding.
Please review the attached liaison and let
me know if you have any remarks. Does anyone have any other issues
that they would like to raise, regarding WT-129
?
2.
I have spoken with Edward Beili, the editor of the
draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-05
and we agree that there is a
good chance that we can re-use the ifAvailableStack
Table. Therefore, as this document is not yet published,
I will send an email to Dan and Edward requesting
that Edward separate out this table and generalize the
comments to allow for bonding of all xDSL types.
3.
Once we receive a response from the DSL Forum and also from Edward and
Dan regarding the hubmib cu mib we can then
decide how best to proceed. A charter change
will be required before any work can be done on this subject.
We need to move the VDSL2 MIB
forward.
The latest VDSL2 draft is draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-01.txt. Does anyone
have any comments?
Best Regards,
Menachem Dodge
<[email protected]>
22/08/2006 09:51
To
<[email protected]> ,
<[email protected]> ,
<[email protected]>
cc
[email protected] ,
[email protected]
Subject
RE: [Adslmib] VDSL2
draft draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-01.txt
Clay,
I did go through the
hubmib
EFM draft, looking at it from bonding perspective.
- The
draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-05
is based on IEEE 802.3ah-2004 (not on G.998.2).
- ITU-T G.998.2 refers to
the
IEEE standard for most part; but it generalizes the Ethernet bonding to
all xDSL technologies.
- ITU-T G.998.2 doesn’t
restrict
Ethernet bonding to SHDSL and VDSL alone (which IEEE 802.3ah-2004 does).
My views are:
a)
We
should have a separate MIB for xDSL bonding
b)
Generalize
as far as possible taking both G.998.1 and G.998.2 into account
Regards
Naren
----------
From: Clay Sikes
[ mailto:[email protected] ]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 7:42 PM
To: Narendranath Nair (WT01 - Broadband Networks);
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Adslmib] VDSL2 draft draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-01.txt
Hi,
I thought that G.998.1 is commonly used to bond ADSL while G.998.2 via
IEEE 802.3ah is commonly used to bond SHDSL and VDSL.
Naren, have you looked at the draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-05 for
G.998.2/IEEE
802.ah?
It does seem like there needs to be a MIB for G.998.1.
Regards,
Clay
On 8/21/2006 6:15 AM, [email protected]
wrote:
Frank,
Shouldn’t we take into
consideration
ITU-T G.998.1 also, and have one common model for both ATM and Ethernet
bonding?
Regards
Naren
----------
From: [email protected]
[ mailto:[email protected] ]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 1:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Adslmib] VDSL2 draft draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-01.txt
Menachem,
The bonding should not be addressed within the VDSL2 MIB. The ITU-T
G.998.2
Ethernet bonding standard aplies to SHDSL, ADSL(2)(plus) and VDSL2. It
should be addressed separately, as management of a bonding layer on top
of the physical layer, hence on top of the VDSL2 MIB, and not as part
of
it.
Regards,
Frank
[email protected]
wrote:
Hi,
The VDSL2 draft draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-01.txt
was posted two weeks ago.
I hope that everyone is reviewing this document.
There has been no response regarding the xDSL
Bonding issue raised two weeks ago. Does this imply no interest?
Editors? Anyone?
Best Regards,
Menachem.
----------
_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
----------
_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
----------
Subject: Response To Your Liaison on WT-129.
Date: 24th August, 2006.
To: Gavin Young,
DSL Forum Technical Committee Chair
"Gavin Young" <[email protected]>
Peter Adams,
DSL Forum Operations and Network Management Working Group Chair
"Peter Adams" <[email protected]>
Cc: IETF [email protected][email protected]
Loa Andersson
"Loa Andersson" <[email protected]>
Dan Romascanu
Operations and Management Area Director
"Romascanu, Dan" <[email protected]>
Michael Sneed
IETF ADSL MIB Working Group Co-Chair
"Michael Sneed" [email protected]
From: IETF ADSL MIB Working Group
Response contact: Menachem Dodge
IETF ADSL MIB Working Group Co-Chair
"Menachem Dodge" <[email protected]>
Technical contact: "Menachem Dodge" <[email protected]>
PURPOSE: Response
Subject: Response To Your Liaison on WT-129.
Dear Gavin and Peter,
Thank you for your liaison and WT-129 Version 3.0. We would be very grateful if
you would continue to keep us informed of any changes to this Working Text document.
In response to WT-129, we would like to raise the issue of xDSL Bonding, as
defined by the ITU-T documents G.998.1 and G.998.2, but is currently not addressed in
WT-129. The IETF ADSL MIB Working Group believes that this issue is important
and would be very pleased if the DSL Forum Operations and Network Management Working Group
would address this issue.
Yours Sincerely,
Menachem Dodge
IETF ADSL MIB Working Group Co-Chair
_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.