Re: LMP mib and Sonet-SDH draft mis-alignment
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 08 November 2004 20:45 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29036 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:45:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRGP7-000572-Ne for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:46:22 -0500
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.41 (FreeBSD)) id 1CRGGa-000DUx-Ep for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:37:32 +0000
Received: from [62.241.163.6] (helo=astro.systems.pipex.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.41 (FreeBSD)) id 1CRGGZ-000DUj-8Y for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:37:31 +0000
Received: from dnni.com (81-178-2-190.dsl.pipex.com [81.178.2.190]) by astro.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05C8E000112; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:37:27 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from Puppy ([130.129.135.167] RDNS failed) by dnni.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:37:27 +0000
Message-ID: <010601c4c5d2$d9c2c1c0$a7878182@Puppy>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "Shiba, Sidney" <sidney.shiba@fnc.fujitsu.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
References: <7CA873794E52904EAA980A074B0767790DF68F@rchemx01.fnc.net.local>
Subject: Re: LMP mib and Sonet-SDH draft mis-alignment
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:37:10 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2004 20:37:27.0364 (UTC) FILETIME=[C2B4A840:01C4C5D2]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.64
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 944ecb6e61f753561f559a497458fb4f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Well, in my turn, I don't understand your question. There is only one definition of the bits to send on the wire in LMP. It is defined in draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-04.txt What other definitions do you see? The bits in draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-10.txt are used in SNMP and are not used in LMP. They *do* define what is sent/seen on the wire, and they *do* have an exact one-to-one relationship, but they are *not* sent on the wire. A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shiba, Sidney" <sidney.shiba@fnc.fujitsu.com> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 8:24 PM Subject: RE: LMP mib and Sonet-SDH draft mis-alignment Adrian, I'm not sure I understand your statement. As a bit of Verify Transport Mechanism is used to indicate the remote node which mechanism is going to be used for test messages, I was just wondering how can we guarantee interoperability if a common definition is not shared among vendors. In short, which one do you suggest vendors support, the bit definition in draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-10.txt or draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-soned-sdh-04.txt? Is there a sort of implementation agreement in the IETF world? Thanks, Sidney -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 2:11 PM To: Shiba, Sidney; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: LMP mib and Sonet-SDH draft mis-alignment Sidney, The bit flags in MIB modules are configuration indications and need not match the actual protocol elements bit for bit. In this particular case one might expect the implementation to map between what is configured and what is sent on the wire in the protocol. History dictates that LMP Test Sonet has some reserved bits on the wire, but there is no need to reflect this in the MIB module. OK? Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shiba, Sidney" <sidney.shiba@fnc.fujitsu.com> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 5:13 PM Subject: LMP mib and Sonet-SDH draft mis-alignment All, Can somebody let me know if there is a mib being specified for the draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-04.txt. Currently, the draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-10.txt still have the definitions for SONET/SDH in it. lmpLinkVerifyTransportMechanism OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX BITS { -- All encoding types: payload(0), -- SONET/SDH encoding type: dccSectionOverheadBytes(1), dccLineOverheadBytes(2), j0Trace(3), j1Trace(4), j2Trace(5) } While, the bit definition in draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-04.txt don't match for J1 and J2. See below: 0x0001 : Reserved 0x0002 DCCS: Test Message over the Section/RS DCC 0x0004 DCCL: Test Message over the Line/MS DCC 0x0008 J0-trace: J0 Section Trace Correlation --> 0x0010: Reserved --> 0x0020: Reserved --> 0x0040 J1-trace: J1 Path Trace Correlation --> 0x0080 J2-trace: J2 Section Trace Correlation Are both documents correct and if so, how the Verify Transport Mechanism should be interpreted for J1 and J2? Thanks, Sidney Shiba
- LMP mib and Sonet-SDH draft mis-alignment Shiba, Sidney
- Re: LMP mib and Sonet-SDH draft mis-alignment Adrian Farrel
- RE: LMP mib and Sonet-SDH draft mis-alignment Shiba, Sidney
- Re: LMP mib and Sonet-SDH draft mis-alignment Adrian Farrel
- Re: LMP mib and Sonet-SDH draft mis-alignment Thomas D. Nadeau
- RE: LMP mib and Sonet-SDH draft mis-alignment Shiba, Sidney