RE: VDSL2 draft draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-01.txt
"Edward Beili" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.adslmib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Menachem, The so called G.Bond effort in the ITU-T included 3 specifications: G.998.1 (ATM), G.998.2 (Ethernet) and G.998.3 (TDIM). I would like you to add the 3rd bonding specification G.998.3 to the liaison. Note that all 3 specifications are pretty different, e.g. G.998.1 and G.998.2 define only a single service (ATM and Ethernet respectively), while G.998.3 is a multi-service protocol, with a specific service allocation configuration. My personal view is that a separate MIB is required for each bonding protocol. Thanks, -Edward -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:21 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Adslmib] VDSL2 draft draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-01.txt Frank, Thank you for your comments, I have modified the second paragraph. Best Regards, Menachem Dodge [email protected] 25/08/2006 08:37 To [email protected] cc [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email protected]> Subject Re: [Adslmib] VDSL2 draft draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-01.txt 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 <mailto:[email protected]> [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 <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> 22/08/2006 09:51 To <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>, <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>, <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> cc <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected], <mailto:[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]> mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 7:42 PM To: Narendranath Nair (WT01 - Broadband Networks); <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Cc: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]; <mailto:[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, <mailto:[email protected]> [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: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] [ <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 1:57 PM To: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Cc: <mailto:[email protected]> [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 <mailto:[email protected]> [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 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib _____ _______________________________________________ Adslmib mailing list <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib _______________________________________________ Adslmib mailing list <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib> 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" <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Peter Adams, DSL Forum Operations and Network Management Working Group Chair "Peter Adams" <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Cc: IETF <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Loa Andersson "Loa Andersson" <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Dan Romascanu Operations and Management Area Director "Romascanu, Dan" <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Michael Sneed IETF ADSL MIB Working Group Co-Chair "Michael Sneed" <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] From: IETF ADSL MIB Working Group Response contact: Menachem Dodge IETF ADSL MIB Working Group Co-Chair "Menachem Dodge" <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Technical contact: "Menachem Dodge" <mailto:[email protected]> <[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