Re: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB

[Menachem Dodge <[e-mail]>]

Hello All,

Although only a small number of WG members have been involved in this discussion, there has nonetheless been strong differences of opinion.

However, I would like to see if a consensus can be reached based on suggestions already put forward.

Can we agree on the following:

	1. The WG develops an additional optional Vdsl2 configuration extension MIB based on TR-165. 
	   	a. This extension contains a "scalar variable" or "switch" used by the manager and the SNMP agent to negotiate 
               whether VDSL2 configuration will be done by the TR-165 VoP Method or the TR-129 RFC 5650 Method. 
	      b. The default of the "scalar variable" is TR-129 RFC 5650 Method. 
	      c. If either the SNMP manager or the SNMP Agent do not support the extension MIB and hence the "switch", 
               configuration will be done by TR-129 RFC 5650.
	2. RFC 5650 remains unchanged. 
	3. Support of RFC 5650 is mandatory.
	
Please indicate agreement or disagreement to the above.

Thank you kindly,
Menachem
	


-----Original Message-----
From: peidaoyu [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:30 PM
To: [e-mail]; 'Scott Baillie'; Menachem Dodge
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: 答复: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB

Hi all,
I don't think that 10-100 profiles are enough for used to manage order of
10^5 to 10^6 xDSL lines, maybe it's enough for adsl, but it’s not enough
for vdsl2. Furthermore, the memory is not the only reason to define TR165.
In FTTx or DLM or DSM cases the TR165 model is more suitable, it makes
configuration simpler. 
As there are two many differences between these two models, the translation
between TR-129 model and TR-165 model is almost impossible, and makes no
sense. Maybe a switch is suitable, then it up to the operator to choose a
management model it prefers to.
Regards,
PeiDaoyu
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表
Umberto Bonollo
发送时间: 2009年11月24日 15:01
收件人: 'Scott Baillie'; Menachem Dodge
抄送: [e-mail]
主题: Re: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB

Hi Scott,
I am in agreement with your position in 1. and 2. below.
It must be possible for RFC-5650 to work independently of
possible optional VOP add-on.
From very large projects in the field I'm aware of,
typically,  10-100 profiles are used to manage order of 10^5 to 10^6 xDSL
lines.

Regards,
Umberto Bonollo
RFC-5650 co-author

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On
Behalf Of Scott Baillie
Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2009 3:43 PM
To: Menachem Dodge
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB


Hi All,

I would like to summarise my position on the Vector of Profiles
MIB proposal so that it is clearer what my position is, but I
would like to hear the views of the group on these issues.

My position
-----------
1. I would prefer that the TR-165 enhancements be implemented
   at a lower layer and hence no need to change the RFC-5650
   management interface. The reasons for this are covered
   in my previous post.
2. If the RFC-5650 extension MIB was to go ahead anyway,
   I would be very much opposed to the effort unless :
   a) The TR-129 model is mandatory and the TR-165 model is
      optional. Hence, a SNMP agent MUST implement the template
      model but MAY implement the VoP model.
   b) The tables in RFC-5650 are not altered in any way, only
      one scalar variable is added to RFC-5650. The scalar
      variable would be writeable and have 2 values.
   c) When a SNMP agent is configured to operate in TR-165
      mode, it must also be fully manageable by a SNMP
      manager that only understands the TR-129 model.

Regards,

Scott.

On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 17:21 +0200, Menachem Dodge wrote:
> Hello, 
> 
> So far only a small number of WG members have offered their opinion as to
whether or not the TR-165 management model should be developed.
> 
> A suggestion has been proposed such that an optional extension to RFC 5650
be developed that would contain a switch allowing either the current TR-129
model or the TR-165 model to be supported.
> 
> The opinions thus far have been divided, even regarding this optional
extension.
> 
> I would appreciate additional members of the WG to come forward and voice
their view.
> 
> Thank you kindly,
> Menachem Dodge
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:05 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Menachem Dodge; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Moti Morgenstern;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: AW: Vector of Profiles MIB
> 
> Hello Scott,
> 
> I understand your proposal but it does not address the complete issue. 
> Operators need more flexibility of configuring their network. The approach
of TR-129 does not scale from the OSS point view as it multiplies the amount
of different xDSL profiles/templates. In practice, the MIB from the DSLAM
(In this case represeting the TR-129 object model) is usually mapped 1:1
into the EMS and its data model. In FTTx deployment scenarios with specific
requirements depending on the PSD shaping on the remote DSLAM, noise
margins, specific OLR features and INP configurations, TR-129 causes a
multiplication of templates as every single parameter variation ends up in a
new template and/or channel or line profile.
> 
> Therefore TR-165 needs to be implemented at the SNMP management interface
and in the associated EMS to take full effect.
> 
> Be aware that only the profile configurtion of RFC5650 is affected, all
other parts are untouched and can stay as they are today. In order to not
skip the template approach from TR-129 completely, a switch, as proposed by
Peidaoyu from Huawei, might be a good solution.
> 
> Regards
> Markus
> 
>     
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Scott Baillie [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. November 2009 13:00
> An: Menachem Dodge; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Moti Morgenstern;
Freudenberger, Markus; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Betreff: Re: Vector of Profiles MIB
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> As you may know from my previous messages on the subject of the Vector of
Profiles MIB proposal, I do not believe that it is a good idea to introduce
another VDSL2 management interface which is not compatible with the existing
management interface ( RFC5650 ) unless there are compelling and significant
reasons to do so.
> 
> Introducing an incompatible VDSL2 management interface does not benefit
the xDSL industry, it causes harm because NMS/EMS applications will now have
to support two interfaces instead of one.
> 
> I consider the Vector of Profiles scheme to be an implementation decision
which should be considered by firmware developers in order to minimise the
storage requirements for xDSL configuration in the Access Node.
> But this implementation decision is a low level detail and should not
affect the VDSL2 management interface.
> 
> A firmware developer can implement the VoP scheme inside the Access Node
while remaining 100% compatible with the RFC5650 management interface. What
is required is to provide a mapping between the template name and the
vector, and this mapping can be kept hidden so that the operator has no
knowledge of the internal implementation details.
> 
> Let me state my proposal in a different way in case what I said was not
very clear.
> 
> 1. Internally, the xDSL configuration is stored using
>    the efficient VoP scheme.
> 2. In the firmware, a mapping exists between the RFC5650
>    template name and the internal vector that stores the
>    configuration for that template. This mapping may take
>    the form of a hash map for example.
> 3. When a SNMP request arrives to read a row from the
>    line profile or channel profile tables
>    ( xdsl2LineConfProfTable,
>      xdsl2LineConfProfModeSpecTable
>      xdsl2LineConfProfModeSpecBandUsTable,
>      xdsl2ChConfProfileTable )
>    the access node will consult its hash map and find
>    the corresponding vector. The access node will then
>    retrieve the data from the vector and return it in
>    the form of a SNMP row.
>    What this means is that storage of the xDSL
>    configuration data is decoupled from the MIB
>    representation of the data. Most modern SNMP agent's
>    ( such as the Net SNMP agent ) supports decoupling
>    of the underlying storage as I have described.
> 4. When a SNMP request arrives to write a row into
>    the line profile or channel profile tables, the
>    access node must either create a new vector to
>    store the data of reference an existing vector
>    which already contains that data.
> 
> Using this approach, the access node gains the advantage of storing the
xDSL configuration data efficiently while remaining compatible with the
existing SNMP management interface.
> 
> The algorithm that I have described above would need to be specified in
more detail, but I am sure that every one here is an engineer and at least
understands the concept that I am proposing.
> 
> In conclusion, I think that the broad band forum should create a companion
document that goes together with TR165 which specifies an algorithm (
similar to what I have proposed above ) that firmware developers can use to
map between 5650 templates and VoP vectors instead of specifying a new VDSL2
management interface at the IETF.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Scott.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib