Re: DS1, DS3 and SONET Supplemental MIBs (WAS: PerfHist-TC-MIB)

["C. M. Heard/VVNET, Inc." <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 28 May 1998, Ken Chapman wrote:
[ ... ]
> I'll draft a Supplemental-PerfHist-TC-MIB to go along with the 
> DS1, DS3 and SONET Supplemental MIBs.
> 
> Now that I've got your attention, I have an important question of scope.
> I think that each supplemental MIB should just address a specific 
> standard, in this case ANSI T1.231.  Does anyone think otherwise?

That sounds quite reasonable, and is in line with the goals set forth
for the supplemental trunk MIBs when they was proposed some time ago.
I do, however, think that any new work should be based on T1.231-1997
and not on T1.231-1993.

> Actually I want to submit another new MIB for SONET APS, but I don't think
> it should be bundled in.

If the purpose in generating the supplemental trunk MIBs is to provide an
SNMP implementation of all of the mandatory or conditionally mandatory
performance parameters in T1.231 then the SONET supplemental MIB should
include the protection switching count (PSC) line layer parameter, and
the conformance statements should note that it is required if line-switched
protection is implemented (section 9.1.1).  Other protection switching
stuff probably should be relegated to a different MIB.

> Likewise, I looked at the draft of the
> DS3 sup MIB and think that the PLCP stuff belongs somewhere else.

Agreed, since it is ATM- and SMDS-specific.

> 	Ken

Mike
--
C. M. Heard/VVNET, Inc.
[e-mail]