Current Meeting Report
Slides


2.3.1 ADSL MIB (adslmib)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 52nd IETF Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah USA. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 04-Dec-01
Chair(s):
Michael Sneed <mike.sneed@go.ecitele.com>
Operations and Management Area Director(s):
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Operations and Management Area Advisor:
Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Technical Advisor(s):
Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn@bmc.com>
Editor(s):
Faye Ly <fayely98@hotmail.com>
Greg Bathrick <greg.bathrick@nokia.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:XDSLMIB@LISTSERV.ECIRALEIGH.COM
To Subscribe: LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ECIRALEIGH.COM
In Body: subscribe/signoff XDSLMIB
Archive: index XDSLMIB/get <archivename>
Description of Working Group:
The working group will define a set of managed objects to be used for management of Very high speed Digital Subscriber Line (VDSL) services as defined by T1E1.4/2000-009R2. It is a goal, though not a requirement, that the resultant MIB be published as an extension to the ADSLMIB. The MIB defined by this group will be generated using SMIv2, will be consistent with the SNMP management framework, and will describe the relationship of the objects defined to existing MIBs such as those described by the current ADSLMIB and HDSL2/SHDSL MIB, the interfaces MIB, and the AToM MIB.

The working group will consider the input of the DSL forum and the ITU in the definition of this MIB.

In addition, the group will continue to work on the promotion of the ADSLMIB, the ADSL Extension MIB, and the HDSL2/SHDSL MIB through the IETF standards process.

Goals and Milestones:
Done   Submit Internet-Draft to cover subscriber equipment
Done   Meet at Chicago IETF to review Internet-Drafts
Done   Submit Internet-Draft to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard.
Done   Meet at Oslo IETF to review new Internet-Drafts and discuss implementation experience on initial MIB
Done   Submit supplementary Internet-Draft to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard.
Done   Produce Internet-Draft covering HDSL2 management objects.
Done   Submit updated HDSL2/SHDSL Internet-Draft
Done   Complete WG last call for HDSL2/SHDSL management objects
Done   Collect implementation reports for ADSL MIB
Done   Submit HDSL2/SHDSL MIB to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard
Done   Submit initial Internet-Draft VDSL MIB
Apr 01   Submit Internet-Draft ADSL MIB based on implementations of RFC2662
May 01   Submit ADSL MIB to IESG for consideration as Draft Standard
Jun 01   Submit updated VDSL MIB Internet-Draft
Aug 01   Complete WG last call on VDSL MIB
Aug 01   Submit VDSL MIB to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard
Internet-Drafts:
Request For Comments:
RFCStatusTitle
RFC2662PSDefinitions of Managed Objects for the ADSL Lines

Current Meeting Report

 Minutes of the ADSLMIB Working Group
IETF 52, Salt Lake City
Recorded by Mike Sneed

The ADSL MIB working group met in Salt Lake City on Tue 11 Dec 2001.

Status of current documents was presented:
The ADSL Extension MIB has passed WG last call and undergone IESG review. A new draft addressing issues which were identified during review will be posted when the repository reopens.

The HDSL2/SHDSL MIB has passed WG last call, IESG review, and IESG last call. The current version of the draft, which addresses the IESG last call issues, will be sent back to the ADs after the meeting. There was some discussion of adding objects to the HDSL MIB, which has passed WG and IESG last call, but it was decided these might be better handled in a later follow-on document.

Bob Ray began discussion of the VDSL MIB draft with a discussion of a 64bit version of RFC2493 which was being discussed later in AToMMIB, and is needed for the VDSL MIB. It was noted that the treatment of "invalid" or "suspect" intervals differs from some current documents. The further discussion of this issue was deferred to the AToMMIB group.

The VDSL draft was then discussed. Bob pointed out that the main change from the other DSL MIBs, other than technology specific issues, is the uniform treatment of endpoints, ie. no sepearte tables for near and far end.

It was mentioned that a Gauge64 TC might be generally useful. It was argued that because of the prohibition of referencing TCs within TCs this is not in fact a useful TC.

An informal question was asked as to how much ADSL equipment is being managed today via craft interfaces. One answer was 90%. Other answers indicated a mixture of craft interfaces, SNMP, and CORBA were being used.

Slides

HC-PerfHist-TC-MIB