Re: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB

[Menachem Dodge <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

I agree with you that the number of people supporting the work is marginal, and was hoping that a few more people would speak up in support of this work.

The number does not include myself, so there are five involved people.

I haven't appointed an editor as yet but the editor would be included in this figure.

Although there are only a few active people, there are always additional people on the mailing list who provide feedback.
By moving the work to the OPSAWG I think we may lose their comments. However, I would be interested to hear what others think.

Best Regards,
Menachem

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 7:33 PM
To: Menachem Dodge; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB

From an AD perspective this number of four individuals is marginal. Actually it’s rather on the red side of the margin.

Question - does the figure four include the chair? Do you have a designated editor? Does the figure of four include him or her?

Second Question - would the few people involved be favorable of taking this work to OPSAWG which is chartered among other with doing incremental MIB work such as this one?

Thanks and Regards,

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Menachem Dodge
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 7:27 PM
> To: Menachem Dodge; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB
>
> Hello,
>
> So far I have 4 people "in-favor" and one person
> "not-opposed" to this work. All of these people are willing
> to support the work in one form or another.
>
> This is the last call for anyone else who wishes to respond!
>
> Thank you kindly.
> Menachem
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Menachem Dodge
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 11:44 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB
>
> Hello Markus,
>
> Thank you kindly for your response.
>
>
> Once again the WG is kindly requested to indicate, by
> Thursday 10th December, as to whether:
>
>         1. The proposal for work on the extension is
> acceptable or not.
>         2. If you support this work, whether you will be able
> to take an active role in developing the draft.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Menachem
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> [e-mail]
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:42 PM
> To: Menachem Dodge; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB
>
> Hello Menachem,
>
> Regarding 1)
> as already stated, I support the MIB extension for TR-165 Support.
>
> Regarding 2)
> Yes, I can provide material for developing the draft.
>
> Regards
> Markus
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von Menachem Dodge
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2009 09:12
> An: [e-mail]
> Betreff: Re: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB
>
> Hi All,
>
>         The WG is kindly requested to respond as to whether:
>
>         1. The proposal for work on the extension is
> acceptable or not.
>         2. If you support this work, whether you will be able
> to take an active role in developing the draft.
>
> Best Regards,
> Menachem
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:07 PM
> To: [e-mail]; Menachem Dodge
> Cc: [e-mail]; Moti Morgenstern
> Subject: RE: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB
>
> The principal problem I see this WG facing is the scarce
> active participation which makes progress of the chartered
> items happen at a painfully slow rate. I will be reluctant to
> consider new work items without seeing a proof that there are
> enough committed contributors to edit and review documents. I
> would suggest to people who support this work to also mention
> in their messages what kind of active role they are
> interested to take and believe that they will be able to sustain.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > [e-mail]
> > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 11:43 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB
> >
> >
> >  Hello Menachem,
> >
> > I agree with your proposal.
> >
> > Regards
> > Markus
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Menachem Dodge [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. November 2009 16:26
> > An: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Scott
> Baillie'; Moti
> > Morgenstern; Freudenberger, Markus
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Betreff: RE: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
>