Re: [Adslmib] Vector of Profiles MIB

["VAN DER PUTTEN Frank" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Menachem,

My answers to your questions:

1. The proposal for work on the extension is acceptable or not.
	
I see a value in the "Vector of Profiles" concept in a residential mass-market DSL environment, since it creates a higher configuration flexibility. Although changing the object model causes a significant migration effort for existing deployments based on the TR-129 object model, I do not oppose this work being started in IETF.


2. If you support this work, whether you will be able to take an active role in developing the draft.

I won't be able to take an active role in creation of IETF documents, but am glad to review contributions and provide feedback.

Thanks,
Frank Van der Putten
Alcatel-Lucent



-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Menachem Dodge
Sent: donderdag 3 december 2009 9:12
To: [e-mail]
Subject: 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