Subject: [Adslmib] NGDSL-LINE MIB Thoughts

From: "Clay Sikes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:18:40 -0400

Hi Menachem,

Are you considering the possibility of using the NGDSL-LINE MIB to
manage VDSL2?  That would really be cool.  Also, it sounds like there
is some work going on for quad-spectrum  ADSL.  It sounds like you guys
are plugged into what is happening in the ITU and DSL Forum which is
awesome.

One thing that's interesting is the effect on the ranges for various
objects the different flavors of DSL will have.  I mentioned in an
earlier Email, that it might be better to pull out the TCs in a
separate module.  Given the choice between having them in the
NGDSL-LINE MIB verses a separate module,  the separate module may be a
better choice.  I think the whole issue of how to make the NGDSL-LINE
MIB as adaptable as possible should be carefully considered.  In fact,
it may warrant a discussion with Bert, Randy, and perhaps a MIB doctor
such as C.M. Heard ([email-masked]).  It also will have an impact on
compliance statements.  Some thoughts are (there may be others that are
better):

Keep everything in the NGDSL-LINE MIB and if something needs to
be updated, get a draft out as soon as possible.

I think there is a tendency to frown on implementing drafts, but in
this case, it may be the only thing to do.

Create TCs for all the objects that have ranges such as maximum
nominal aggregate transmit PSD and move all the TC into a stand-a-lone
document.  There may be issues with this solution.

Objects that have range restrictions take on the full limit of
their syntax and there could be an informational type of document that
IDs valid ranges for the respective technology.

Basically I'm just trying to provoke some thought that may or may not
have already taken place regarding changes that may require the MIB
module to be updated and how they can occur quickly as the process of
updating an RFC is significant and usually requires and enterprise
solution.  I worry about this.  May be more than I should. ;-)

Does this make sense?

What are your thoughts?

Regards,

Clay Sikes

Zhone Technologies, Inc.

On 9/20/2005 11:07 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

Hi Clay,

Thanks very much for this email and your other email with comments on
the Adsl2 draft. Moti is currently at the ATM forum as
he has written to you. Sounds like we will need to add a Vdsl2 addition to
the Adsl2 MIB once the work on the Adsl2 MIB is completed.

I will review the Adsl2 draft in light of your comments.

Thanks again, for your valuable review of the draft, so far.

Regards,

Menachem Dodge
ECI Telecom Ltd.
Broadband Access Division

Tel: +972-3-9268421
Mobile: +972-54-5788421
Fax: +972-3-9287342

-- Paradyne Mail --

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