Murwin William-LWM008 | 1 Mar 2003 18:50

draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt

Please post the following draft,
Tiitle: Data Over Cable System Quality of Service Management Information Base (DOCSIS-QOS MIB)
Version: 8
Dated: March 1, 2003
Work Group: IPCDN
Authors: Michael Patrick and William Murwin

______________________________
William Murwin
Broadband Communications Sector
Motorola Inc.
Email: W.Murwin <at> motorola.com
Tel: (508) 851-8385
 <<draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt>> 

IPCDN  Working Group                                   Michael Patrick
<draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt>                      William Murwin
                                                       Motorola BCS



             Data Over Cable System Interface Specification
                           Quality of Service
              Management Information Base (DOCSIS-QOS MIB)

                             March 1, 2003


(Continue reading)

Raftus, David | 2 Mar 2003 15:14

draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv6

Hi,

 

Please find attached an update of draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmib from v5 to v6. The draft has been updated to incorporate editorial suggestions from the Feb 13 IPCDN WG meeting, and is intended for last call submission.

 

Thanks,

Dave

 

************************************

David Raftus

Terayon Canada Ltd

340 Terry Fox Drive, Suite 202

Ottawa Canada  K2K 3A2

 

david.raftus <at> terayon.com          

613.592.1052  ext 222

************************************               

 

 

Attachment (draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv6.zip): application/octet-stream, 115 KiB
Woundy, Richard | 3 Mar 2003 21:11
Picon

RE: InetAddress or PrefixLength as a mask

Just curious if anyone had a reaction to my email response below -- about
the BPI+ MIB use of a netmask rather than a prefix for matching IPv6
multicast address...

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: Woundy, Richard 
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:04 AM
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; IPCDN WG (E-mail)
Cc: Thomas Narten (E-mail); Erik Nordmark (E-mail); Randy Bush (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] InetAddress or PrefixLength as a mask

Bert,

Since I am the person that most likely influenced the BPI+ MIB's use of a
netmask rather than a prefix length, I suppose I should directly answer your
question. (Of course, that makes your suggestion about putting the
explanation in the DESCRIPTION clause all the wiser.)

The IPv6 addressing architecture is currently defined in RFC 2373. Section
2.7 describes the format of the IPv6 multicast addresses: 8 bits of
'11111111' for identification as multicast, 4 bits of 'flags', 4 bits of
'scope', and 112 bits of 'group ID'. Five scope values are defined for
node-local, link-local, site-local, organization-local, and global scopes.
Section 2.7.2 shows how new IPv6 multicast addresses can be assigned, making
reference to RFC 2375.

The draft draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt, which updates RFC 2373,
defines six scope values: interface-local, link-local, admin-local,
site-local, organization-local, and global scopes.

Some of the permanently assigned IPv6 multicast addresses appear in RFC 
2375. This RFC includes all-scope addresses in section 3.0 -- these
multicast address assignments apply for all IPv6 multicast scope contexts.
Typically, these assignments are written as "FF0X:...". These assignments
are referred to as "Variable Scope Multicast Addresses" by IANA,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses>.

As an operator, I would strongly prefer to use one row in the BPI+ MIB table
to match each of these variable-scope permanently assigned addresses. I want
to avoid creating five to six rows (one per defined multicast scope) or
sixteen rows (one per potential multicast scope). Unfortunately, every
prefix of an IPv6 multicast address that contains at least one bit of the
'group ID' MUST contain the entire 'flags' and 'scope' components. The only
way to perform an address match based solely on 'group ID' while ignoring
the 'scope' is to use a non-contiguous netmask.

If there is a better way to accomplish this, I would love to learn about it.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen <at> lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 7:13 AM
To: Ipcdn (E-mail)
Cc: Thomas Narten (E-mail); Erik Nordmark (E-mail); Randy Bush (E-mail)
Subject: [ipcdn] InetAddress or PrefixLength as a mask

During the IPCDN WG interim meeting last week
I question why in 
      docsBpi2CmtsIpMulticastMask        OBJECT-TYPE
           SYNTAX         InetAddress
           MAX-ACCESS     read-create
           STATUS         current
           DESCRIPTION
      "This object represents the IP multicast address mask
      for this row.
      An IP multicast address matches this row if the logical
      AND of the address with docsBpi2CmtsIpMulticastMask is
      identical to the logical AND of
      docsBpi2CmtsIpMulticastAddr with
      docsBpi2CmtsIpMulticastMask."
      ::= { docsBpi2CmtsIpMulticastMapEntry 5 }

You specify the mask as an InetAddress and not as an
InetAddressPrefixLength. I was given some explanations, 
but I am not 100% sure I understood and I am not 100% sure
they are valid. 

Could the authors pls respond with an explanation (which I think
should also be inclued in the DESCRIPTION clause if it is accepted).

There may be other occurences of this in one ore more of your
MIB documents.

Thanks,
Bert 
Woundy, Richard | 4 Mar 2003 17:12
Picon

IPCDN draft updates

Folks,

I uploaded all of the recently-updated drafts of which I am aware, to
<http://www.ipcdn.org/ipcdn-ids.html>.

Updates include the Cable Device MIB (-05), the RFI MIB (-06), the QoS MIB
(-08), the Subscriber Management MIB (-10), and the six CableHome MIBs
(m-02, except for -01 of the CableHome QoS MIB).

Since no PacketCable MIB updates were submitted, we may have to reconsider
the meeting agenda for the IETF face-to-face discussion in San Francisco.

-- Rich
Wilson.Sawyer | 5 Mar 2003 15:08
Favicon

subscriber management draft -10

The latest draft of the subscriber management MIB was published on the IETF
lists today. This is the same version that Rich has already posted to the
web site.

The only changes from -09 to -10 were to change the 8-bit TosValue/TosMask
to a 6-bit Dscp/Mask.

The only change from -08 to -09 was to change the module name to prevent
namespace conflicts between the to-be-published-someday RFC version and the
already-deployed (-02?) draft. A copyright date was also fixed.

The -08 draft was discussed at the interim meeting, and the summary of
changes in that draft are on the www.ipcdn.org site, under [Meeting
materials] for the February 13 meeting.

- Wilson Sawyer
Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 5 Mar 2003 17:36
Picon
Favicon

RE: RE: Tos field - SubMgt and other IPCDN MIBs

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wilson.Sawyer <at> arrisi.com [mailto:Wilson.Sawyer <at> arrisi.com]
> Sent: woensdag 26 februari 2003 14:28
> To: ipcdn <at> ietf.org
> Cc: bwijnen <at> lucent.com; Erik Nordmark (E-mail); ipcdn-admin <at> ietf.org;
> Thomas Narten (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] RE: Tos field - SubMgt and other IPCDN MIBs
> 
> Colleagues:
> 
> Page 3 of RFC  3260 seems to consign the last remnants of "TOS byte" to the
> dustbin of history. Consequently, per Erik & Bert's point, I'm proposing to
> change docsSubMgtPktFilterTosValue and docsSubMgtPktFilterTosMask from type
> OCTET STRING (SIZE(1)) to be:
> 
> docsSubMgtPktFilterDscpValue
>     SYNTAX Dscp          -- 0..63    RFC 3289: DIFFSERV-DSCP-TC
> docsSubMgtPktFilterDscpMask
>     SYNTAX Dscp
> 
So... you DO understand that this is a change on the wire, right?
For MIB modules that are new (or get rerooted) that is fine.
For modules that recycle or advance, that is a nono.

> That is, these are now 6-bit fields instead of 8 bits. The Mask is a slight
> misuse of the 'Dscp' Textual Convention, but I think it's intuitive enough.
> 
I still do not undertstand why you need the mask for DSCP.
Maybe you explained during the interim,... I either forgot or
I missed it. 

Are you also aware of the DscpOrAny TC?

> For consistency across IPCDN, there are several other MIBs 
> which may want to consider similar changes:
> 
> Docsis device MIB:
>     docsDevFilterIpTos/Mask, docsDevFilterTosTable, ...
> 
So this is in a MIB module where you would have to deprecate
the objects and define new ones.

Bert
> QoS MIB
>            docsQosPktClassIpTosLow
>            docsQosPktClassIpTosHigh
>            docsQosPktClassIpTosMask
> 
> PacketCable event management MTA MIB
>        (introduced in glossary; doesn't appear to be used)
> 
> PacketCable Signaling MIB
>      pktcSigDefCallSigTos
>      pktcSigDefMediaStreamTos
> 
> (I didn't look at the cablehome mibs)
> 
> Comments? Suggestions?
> 
> - Wilson
> 
Wilson.Sawyer | 5 Mar 2003 17:31
Favicon

RE: RE: Tos field - SubMgt and other IPCDN MIBs


>wilson> inline

                                                                                                                    
                      "Wijnen, Bert                                                                                 
                      (Bert)"                  To:       Wilson.Sawyer <at> arrisi.com, ipcdn <at> ietf.org                   
                      <bwijnen <at> lucent.c        cc:       bwijnen <at> lucent.com, "Erik Nordmark (E-mail)"               
                      om>                       <Erik.Nordmark <at> sun.com>, ipcdn-admin <at> ietf.org, "Thomas Narten       
                                                (E-mail)" <narten <at> us.ibm.com>                                       
                      03/05/03 11:36 AM        Subject:  RE: [ipcdn] RE: Tos field - SubMgt and other IPCDN MIBs    

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wilson.Sawyer <at> arrisi.com [mailto:Wilson.Sawyer <at> arrisi.com]
> Sent: woensdag 26 februari 2003 14:28
> To: ipcdn <at> ietf.org
> Cc: bwijnen <at> lucent.com; Erik Nordmark (E-mail); ipcdn-admin <at> ietf.org;
> Thomas Narten (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] RE: Tos field - SubMgt and other IPCDN MIBs
>
> Colleagues:
>
> Page 3 of RFC  3260 seems to consign the last remnants of "TOS byte" to
the
> dustbin of history. Consequently, per Erik & Bert's point, I'm proposing
to
> change docsSubMgtPktFilterTosValue and docsSubMgtPktFilterTosMask from
type
> OCTET STRING (SIZE(1)) to be:
>
> docsSubMgtPktFilterDscpValue
>     SYNTAX Dscp          -- 0..63    RFC 3289: DIFFSERV-DSCP-TC
> docsSubMgtPktFilterDscpMask
>     SYNTAX Dscp
>
So... you DO understand that this is a change on the wire, right?
For MIB modules that are new (or get rerooted) that is fine.
For modules that recycle or advance, that is a nono.

>wilson> yes, submgt(-10) is unrooted at present anyway. Other mibs will
have to consider this.

> That is, these are now 6-bit fields instead of 8 bits. The Mask is a
slight
> misuse of the 'Dscp' Textual Convention, but I think it's intuitive
enough.
>
I still do not undertstand why you need the mask for DSCP.
Maybe you explained during the interim,... I either forgot or
I missed it.

Are you also aware of the DscpOrAny TC?

>wilson> The mask could be used to select various AF classes, for example.
It is also likely that some deployments are still using a non-diffserv
meaning for this byte (Cisco's NetFlow?). Restricting such ad-hoc use to 6
bits doesn't seem onerous to me in order to match IETF direction, but
removing the mask would be removing significant flexibility. Using
DscpOrAny *with* the Mask sounds like sure confusion.

> For consistency across IPCDN, there are several other MIBs
> which may want to consider similar changes:
>
> Docsis device MIB:
>     docsDevFilterIpTos/Mask, docsDevFilterTosTable, ...
>
So this is in a MIB module where you would have to deprecate
the objects and define new ones.

Bert
> QoS MIB
>            docsQosPktClassIpTosLow
>            docsQosPktClassIpTosHigh
>            docsQosPktClassIpTosMask
>
> PacketCable event management MTA MIB
>        (introduced in glossary; doesn't appear to be used)
>
> PacketCable Signaling MIB
>      pktcSigDefCallSigTos
>      pktcSigDefMediaStreamTos
>
> (I didn't look at the cablehome mibs)
>
> Comments? Suggestions?
>
> - Wilson
>
Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 7 Mar 2003 11:57
Picon
Favicon

FW: [Diffserv] Dscp and DscpOrAny TCs

This is one comment I got back from Diffserv list

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Schnizlein [mailto:jschnizl <at> cisco.com]
Sent: woensdag 5 maart 2003 18:29
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: diffserv <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Diffserv] Dscp and DscpOrAny TCs

Good catch, Bert.
The idea of a mask for the DSCP was killed some time ago in Policy Framework based on its incompatibility with
the following explicit prohibition in the definition of the Differentiated Services Field:

RFC 2474 Section 3, page 7
   Implementors should note that the DSCP field is six bits wide.  DS-
   compliant nodes MUST select PHBs by matching against the entire 6-bit
   DSCP field, e.g., by treating the value of the field as a table index
   which is used to select a particular packet handling mechanism which
   has been implemented in that device.  The value of the CU field MUST
   be ignored by PHB selection.  The DSCP field is defined as an
   unstructured field to facilitate the definition of future per-hop
   behaviors.

John

At 11:36 AM 3/5/2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>Do Diffservers think that the following is wise and makes sense?
>
>   docsSubMgtPktFilterDscpValue OBJECT-TYPE
>       SYNTAX      Dscp
>       MAX-ACCESS  read-create
>       STATUS      current
>       DESCRIPTION
>           "The Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) value to match
>            in the IP packet."
>       DEFVAL { 0 }
>       ::= { docsSubMgtPktFilterEntry 9 }
>
>   docsSubMgtPktFilterDscpMask OBJECT-TYPE
>       SYNTAX      Dscp
>       MAX-ACCESS  read-create
>       STATUS      current
>       DESCRIPTION
>           "The mask to apply against the DSCP value to be matched in
>       the IP packet.  The default for both these objects taken together
>       matches all DSCP values. A packet matches this filter if the
>       following is true:
>           AND (FilterDscpValue, FilterDscpMask) ==
>           AND (Packet DSCP Value, FilterDscpMask)."
>       DEFVAL { 0 }
>       ::= { docsSubMgtPktFilterEntry 10 }
>
>It is defined in draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-10.txt and I'd like
>to hear comments from Diffserv experts.
>
>Thanks,
>Bert 
Michael StJohns | 7 Mar 2003 14:03
Picon

RE: RE: Tos field - SubMgt and other IPCDN MIBs

At 05:36 PM 3/5/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>Inline

Given the long history of mucking with the TOS field, it makes little if 
any sense to try and define that field in terms of the current fad.  Leave 
the field/mask as it is/was rather than trying to make it work specifically 
for the flavor of the day.

Mike
Wilson.Sawyer | 7 Mar 2003 14:12
Favicon

Re: FW: [Diffserv] Dscp and DscpOrAny TCs


Keep in mind we're talking about a *filter* here, not a PHB selector. And
we'e not inferring bit-structure in the implementation, merely allowing the
network operator to take advantage of any structure that exists. Do we
really want to require the operator to install three separate filters to
catch one AF class?

I don't find anything in the cited paragraph that contraindicates this sort
of usage. The fact that today's PHB selector set is likely to change is all
the more reason to give a filter-installer some options for concise
representation.

- Wilson

                                                                                                                    
                      "Wijnen, Bert                                                                                 
                      (Bert)"                  To:       "Ipcdn (E-mail)" <ipcdn <at> ietf.org>                          
                      <bwijnen <at> lucent.c        cc:       bwijnen <at> lucent.com, "Thomas Narten (E-mail)"               
                      om>                       <narten <at> us.ibm.com>                                                 
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  [ipcdn] FW: [Diffserv] Dscp and DscpOrAny TCs              
                      ipcdn-admin <at> ietf.                                                                             
                      org                                                                                           

                                                                                                                    
                      03/07/03 05:57 AM                                                                             

This is one comment I got back from Diffserv list

Thanks,
Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: John Schnizlein [mailto:jschnizl <at> cisco.com]
Sent: woensdag 5 maart 2003 18:29
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: diffserv <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Diffserv] Dscp and DscpOrAny TCs

Good catch, Bert.
The idea of a mask for the DSCP was killed some time ago in Policy
Framework based on its incompatibility with the following explicit
prohibition in the definition of the Differentiated Services Field:

RFC 2474 Section 3, page 7
   Implementors should note that the DSCP field is six bits wide.  DS-
   compliant nodes MUST select PHBs by matching against the entire 6-bit
   DSCP field, e.g., by treating the value of the field as a table index
   which is used to select a particular packet handling mechanism which
   has been implemented in that device.  The value of the CU field MUST
   be ignored by PHB selection.  The DSCP field is defined as an
   unstructured field to facilitate the definition of future per-hop
   behaviors.

John

At 11:36 AM 3/5/2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>Do Diffservers think that the following is wise and makes sense?
>
>   docsSubMgtPktFilterDscpValue OBJECT-TYPE
>       SYNTAX      Dscp
>       MAX-ACCESS  read-create
>       STATUS      current
>       DESCRIPTION
>           "The Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) value to match
>            in the IP packet."
>       DEFVAL { 0 }
>       ::= { docsSubMgtPktFilterEntry 9 }
>
>   docsSubMgtPktFilterDscpMask OBJECT-TYPE
>       SYNTAX      Dscp
>       MAX-ACCESS  read-create
>       STATUS      current
>       DESCRIPTION
>           "The mask to apply against the DSCP value to be matched in
>       the IP packet.  The default for both these objects taken together
>       matches all DSCP values. A packet matches this filter if the
>       following is true:
>           AND (FilterDscpValue, FilterDscpMask) ==
>           AND (Packet DSCP Value, FilterDscpMask)."
>       DEFVAL { 0 }
>       ::= { docsSubMgtPktFilterEntry 10 }
>
>It is defined in draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-10.txt and I'd like
>to hear comments from Diffserv experts.
>
>Thanks,
>Bert
_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
IPCDN <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn

Gmane