Subject: RE: [Adslmib] IfIndex mapping to Physical index ( RFC 3276 and VD SL draft)?

From: "El Houmaidi, Mounire" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:58:34 -0800

Hello to All,

I remember a long discussion about xDSL Profile indexing (integer versus
String) and the discussion came down to preserving consistency between xDSL
Mibs:
This is a similar issue: The ADSL Mib (2662) provides a mapping object
(adslLineSpecific); so SHDSL, VDSL should follow the same spirit. We can't
tell our customers we do it this way with ADSL but SHDSL and VDSL we don't.
That's the message I am trying to pass to every one. 

How RFC 2863 will solve such inconsistency?

Regards
Mounire EL Houmaidi

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Ray [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:19 PM
To: [email-masked]; El Houmaidi, Mounire
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] IfIndex mapping to Physical index ( RFC 3276 and
VD SL draf t)?

Please read RFC2863.

Regards,
Bob Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:15 AM
To: El Houmaidi, Mounire
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] IfIndex mapping to Physical index ( RFC 3276 and
VD SL draf t)?

Mounire,

As long as the index/key to the proprietary MIB extension is the (same) one
used by the IETF MIB I believe you don't really need an explicit "pointer"
from within the VDSL/SHDSL MIBs to that proprietary MIB. However, it will
be interesting to hear other opinions on this issue.

Moti

                      "El Houmaidi,
                      Mounire"                 To:
"[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>,
                      <Mounire.El.Houm         [email-masked],
[email-masked]
                      aidi@                    cc:
                      icn.siemens.com>         Subject: RE: [Adslmib]
IfIndex mapping to Physical index ( RFC 3276 and VD SL draf t)?

                      16/01/03 17:48

Moti,

I want to thank you for taking your time to answer our question. The use of
the object is understood and i agree with you.
My question is about the Other MIBS, SHDSL (RFC 3276) and VDSL draft: where
such Object/feature (a hook to a specific MIB as you called it) is
implemented in those MIBs?

Mounire

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:14 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; El Houmaidi, Mounire
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Adslmib] IfIndex mapping to Physical entity index ( RFC
3276 and VDSL draf t)?

Mounire,
I'm sorry for omitting an important word in the last sentence: The
proprietary extension can ALSO be used
for providing the type of information you mention but it's NOT its main
purpose.

Moti

                      Moti.Morgenstern

                      @inoviatele.com          To:      "El Houmaidi,
Mounire" <[email-masked]>
                      Sent by:                 cc:      [email-masked],
[email-masked]
                      adslmib-admin@           Subject: Re: [Adslmib]
IfIndex mapping to Physical entity index ( RFC 3276 and VDSL
                      ietf.org                 draf t)?

                      16/01/03 09:05

Hi,

The purpose of adslLineSpecific, as I understand it, is to behave as a hook
for any vendor specific MIB extension. Such an extension can ALSO be used
for providing the type of information you mention but it's its main
purpose.

Best regards,
Moti Morgenstern

Senior System Engineer
Inovia Telecoms Ltd.
Member of the ECI Telecom group
30 Hasivim St.
Petach Tikva, Israel 49133
Tel.: +972-3-9266258 Fax: +972-3-9268182
e-mail: [email-masked]

                      "El Houmaidi,

                      Mounire"                 To:      "'adslmib@
ietf.org'" <[email-masked]>
                      <Mounire.El.Houm         cc:

                      aidi@                    Subject: [Adslmib] IfIndex
mapping to Physical entity index ( RFC 3276 and VDSL draf
                      icn.siemens.com>         t)?

                      Sent by:

                      adslmib-admin@

                      ietf.org

                      15/01/03 20:22

Hello To all,

In RFC 2662 (ADSL), adslLineSpecific under the adslLineTable may be used to
determine shelf/slot/port of the ATUC interface in a DSLAM. This mapping is
important for mapping an IfIndex  to a Physical interface (depending on
implementation) in the entity Physical Table (RFC 2737) or to an enterprise
Table containing the Physical entities.

we don't see that mapping done in RFC 3276  (SHDSL) or VDSL draft. How can
we provide the same feature for SHDSL and VDSL?

Regards

Mounire El Houmaidi
Siemens ICN,Lake Mary , Florida

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib

---

From: "Bob Ray" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:11:35 -0600

>tell our customers we do it this way with ADSL but SHDSL and VDSL we don't.

I suggest you tell them, "One of the editors is an aging irritable goat".
Follow this declaration with a mildly theatric shrug. :)

>How RFC 2863 will solve such inconsistency?

By keeping proprietary grouping mechanisms out of MIBs...

One might ask: if we put an explicit unbundling mechanism in a MIB (to map
shelf/slot/device-in-slot to ifIndex), what happens when someone has a
grouping we didn't predict (say, t3 over gigabit ethernet) but they still
want to use standard MIBs?  Do we say, "Sorry, but the spirit of our
work precludes that!"?  Of course not.

How about if we don't put a defined mechanism in a MIB, but just put a
big hole that some can exploit (i.e. a "proprietary hooks go here" object)?
Will all vendors implement THAT field the same way?  Of course not.

The next question is if a field is proprietary, and hence its usage cannot
be
standardized, what is it doing in a supposedly standard MIB?

------

The following does not presume to represent the opinions of anyone other
than myself.

------

When SNMPv1 erupted, most managed telecommunications equipment was rack
based.  Some vendors supported the standard MIBs by using community string
to
convey shelf/slot/device information to/from an agent.  Other vendors
created
proprietary versions of the standard MIBs by adding shelf/slot/device
indices
to the MIB tables (along with other transforms).  Then some clever people
noted that they could read the community strings with packet sniffers and
hence control the networked equipment.  This concern over security led
directly to SNMPv2.

The vendors who used community strings to convey indices couldn't support
SNMPv2
because the community string disappeared (as plaintext passwords should).
This
led to SNMPv2c, which restored plaintext community strings and allowed the
indices-in-community-string vendors to keep trudging along proclaiming
compliance with standard MIBs.  The plaintext 'password' was available to
anyone
with a packet sniffer.

So... there was still the need to secure access to these devices (i.e. get
rid
of the plaintext).  Enter SNMPv3.

There was still the need to support mapping standard MIBs to ifIndex.  Enter
RFC2863.

Also note that 2863 is greater than 2662 yet strangely smaller than 3276. :)

Regards,
Bob Ray

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana