headers
Internet-Drafts | 7 Apr 2004 17:00
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-ext-mcm-03.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the ADSL MIB Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Definitions of Managed Object Extensions for Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Lines (VDSL)
Using Multiple Carrier Modulation (MCM) Line Coding
	Author(s)	: M. Dodge, B. Ray
	Filename	: draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-ext-mcm-03.txt
	Pages		: 22
	Date		: 2004-4-6
	
This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base
   (MIB) module for use with network management protocols in the
   Internet community.  In particular, it describes objects used for 
   managing the Line Code Specific parameters of Very High Speed 
   Digital Subscriber Line (VDSL) interfaces using Multiple Carrier 
   Modulation (MCM) Line Coding.  It is an optional extension to the 
   VDSL-LINE-MIB, RFC 3728 [RFC3728], which handles line code 
   independent objects.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-ext-mcm-03.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request <at> ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Internet-Drafts | 7 Apr 2004 17:00
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-ext-scm-03.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the ADSL MIB Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Definitions of Managed Object Extensions for Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Lines (VDSL)
Using Single Carrier Modulation (SCM) Line Coding
	Author(s)	: M. Dodge, B. Ray
	Filename	: draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-ext-scm-03.txt
	Pages		: 17
	Date		: 2004-4-6
	
This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base
(MIB) module for use with network management protocols in the
Internet community.  In particular, it describes objects used for 
managing the Line Code Specific parameters of Very High Speed 
Digital Subscriber Line (VDSL) interfaces using Single Carrier 
Modulation (SCM) Line Coding. It is an optional extension to the 
VDSL-LINE CORE MIB RFC XXXX [RFCXXXX] which handles the line code
independent objects.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-ext-scm-03.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request <at> ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Clay Sikes | 12 Apr 2004 02:48

Draft for G.SHDSL.BIS MIB

Hi Everyone,

A draft for a MIB that extends the HDSL2-SHDSL-LINE-MIB (RFC 3276) to 
support G.shdsl.bis is now available in the internet drafts directory at 
http://www.ietf.org/ids.by.wg/adslmib.html. The version of the draft 
being annonced is -01. Please note that the draft references an updated 
version of the MIB at 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/SHDSL-BIS-LINE-MIB.mib. This URL is 
incorrect in the IETF convention is MIB names are in lower case.  The 
correct URL is  
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/shdsl-bis-line-mib.mib. An update to 
the draft to correct the URL is forthcoming.

All comments are appreciated.

I would like to express thanks to Bob Ray for initiating this draft, 
encouraging me to get involved as an editor, and his mentorship. Also, 
thanks to Michael Sneed and Burt, Wijnen for their help in getting the 
draft and updated MIB posted in the IETF..

Regards,
Clay Sikes

-- Paradyne Mail --
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
LNipper | 12 Apr 2004 16:33

coments on draft G.SHDSL.BIS MIB


Thank you Clay for taking on the editorship of G.SHDSL.BIS.
My comments are below.

Reference this paragraph:

> 2.3.2.   Changes to Line Rate Objects
>
>  Four objects in the HDSL2/SHDSL Line MIB have rate limitations.
>   In each case, these objects have the syntax
>
>        SYNTAX      Unsigned32(0..4112000)
>
>   Changes introduced in G.SHDSL.bis support an increased upper rate
>   of 5696 kbits/s, leading to the updated syntax
>
>        SYNTAX      Unsigned32(0..5696000).

Comments:

I think the original RFC3276 was incorrect with respect to the maximum line
rate for 2 pairs.
A single G.SHDSL pair may have a line rate up to 2312000 bps.  With two
pairs, doubling that amount
would be 4624000.  I think RFC3276 incorrectly doubled the value of
(2048000 + 8000) to get 4112000.

Now, with 4 wire pairs, it seems correct to have 2312000 * 4,  or 9248000
as the maximum line rate.
Am I missing something ?  Is there something I don't understand about the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Clay Sikes | 13 Apr 2004 11:52

Re: coments on draft G.SHDSL.BIS MIB

Lee,

Thanks for your comments.

I need to study the rates a little closer as I don't feel I currently 
have a good understanding of  the values. I should be able to respond in 
a few days.

Thanks,
Clay Sikes

LNipper <at> verilink.com wrote:

>
>
>
>Thank you Clay for taking on the editorship of G.SHDSL.BIS.
>My comments are below.
>
>Reference this paragraph:
>
>  
>
>>2.3.2.   Changes to Line Rate Objects
>>
>> Four objects in the HDSL2/SHDSL Line MIB have rate limitations.
>>  In each case, these objects have the syntax
>>
>>       SYNTAX      Unsigned32(0..4112000)
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Clay Sikes | 14 Apr 2004 00:32

Re: coments on draft G.SHDSL.BIS MIB

Hi Lee,

I looked over the the ITU-T G992.1 (12/2003), talked to a few folks, and 
possibly developed a better understanding. Hopefully, someone will 
correct me if I'm  in error.

The user (payload) data rates come from the formula ( n x 64) + ( i x 8 
) kbits/s for a two-wire pair. The maximum user (payload) for a single 
pare will occur as specified in Annex F when when operating in  
32-TCPAM. In this mode, n = 89 and i = 0 giving a user data rate of 5696 
kbits/s. Also, there is an addition framing overhead of 8 kbits/s so the 
"line rate" would be 5696 kbits/s + 8 kbits/s which give us 5704 kbits/s 
on a single pair. In multi-pair mode, each pair will have the 8 kbits/s 
framing overhead. Now up to 4 pairs or 8 wires are supported. So in the 
case where we have all 4 pairs running at the maximum rate, we get a 
line rate of  4 x (5696 kbits/s + 8 kbits/s) = 4 x 5705 kbits/s = 22 816 
kbits/s. This would  indicate, if my logic is correct, that the max line 
rate for the MIB objects needs to change from 5696000 to  22816000. Does 
this sound right?  Also, it might be a good idea to modify the 
description for the line rates to clearly state that this rate is user 
(payload) and framing overhead. How does that sound.

Annex G worries me because it seems provisional as data rates are 
specified from 2320 to **max rate** kbits/s. I would hope that we would 
have to have frequent changes for max rates. But then again, it would be 
good practice.  :-)

Given, the MIB objects refer to line rate which include both user 
(payload) and framing, it might be a good idea to add a read-only object 
to the hdsl2ShdslSpanStatusTable that subtracts off the framing overhead
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bob Ray | 14 Apr 2004 16:15

Re: coments on draft G.SHDSL.BIS MIB

Maybe we need to reevaluate the option of refreshing
RFC3276 instead of having a g.shdsl.bis draft...

One thing we might try to do is to get rid of the range
on the line speed objects, and perhaps open up the wire 
pair...  

Thoughts?  

--

-- 
Bob Ray <rray <at> pesa.com>
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Rajesh Abbi | 14 Apr 2004 16:45
Picon

Re: coments on draft G.SHDSL.BIS MIB

If the only issue to address is the rate limitation, then I
support Bob's suggestion to get rid of the rate ranges and
leave it flexible for future rate enhancements.

-Rajesh

Bob Ray wrote:

> Maybe we need to reevaluate the option of refreshing
> RFC3276 instead of having a g.shdsl.bis draft...
>
> One thing we might try to do is to get rid of the range
> on the line speed objects, and perhaps open up the wire
> pair...
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Bob Ray <rray <at> pesa.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> Adslmib <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
LNipper | 14 Apr 2004 16:50

Re: coments on draft G.SHDSL.BIS MIB


Clay,

Thanks for looking up the facts about the .bis line rate.
I had thought that the pairs were limited to the older 2320 kbit/s, so I
was incorrect.

Based on n=89 with i=0, and 8 kb overhead, you have the correct value for
line rate maximum now.
The 22816000 number looks right for max payload + overhead for 4 pairs.
A clarification in the description about payload + framing overhead sounds
good.
Also, the description should indicate that the min/max rate values are an
aggregate in multi-pair mode.

I am fine with a new status object for payload rate only.
Particularly with multiple pairs, I think the new object will be useful to
abstract away the
the pair issue when one is interested in payload rate.

After re-thinking the default rate suggestion, I don't think it really
matters.
You are correct that we use our own defaults, and the value is just a
suggestion,
so I think a default change is unnecessary.

Thanks again,

Lee
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
LNipper | 14 Apr 2004 16:54

Re: coments on draft G.SHDSL.BIS MIB


All,

I am also in favor of removing the rate limitation for flexibility.
I do think an update of the rate description as noted earlier will be
helpful.

-Lee

|---------+--------------------------->
|         |           Rajesh Abbi     |
|         |           <Rajesh.Abbi <at> alc|
|         |           atel.com>       |
|         |           Sent by:        |
|         |           abbira <at> aur.alcat|
|         |           el.com          |
|         |                           |
|         |                           |
|         |           04/14/04 09:45  |
|         |           AM              |
|         |                           |
|---------+--------------------------->
  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                               |
  |        To:      rray <at> pesa.com                                                                                                 |
  |        cc:      Clay Sikes <csikes <at> paradyne.com>, LNipper <at> verilink.com, IETF ADSL MIB List <adslmib <at> ietf.org>                 |
  |        Subject: Re: [Adslmib] coments on draft G.SHDSL.BIS MIB                                                                |
  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

If the only issue to address is the rate limitation, then I
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |

Gmane