Subject: Re: SONET/SDH Interfaces MIB and virtual concatenation

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:09:38 -0500

At 09:37 AM 3/12/01 +0000, you wrote:

>Kaj,
>Can you answer the following question I have regarding the SONET 
>interfaces MIB
>RFC 2558:
>
>Would a virtually concatenated SONET/SDH path, such as a VC3-2v, be 
>modelled in
>the MIB as a separate layer, with its own ifIndex, and be layered above the
>constituent VC3s in the ifStackTable?  (This seens one way of abstracting
>virtual concatenation, which is essentially a form of inverse multiplexing).
>
>
>Are there any plans by anyone to write/adapt a standard MIB to include virtual
>concatenation?

hi tom,
what is the stack you're after? note that
2558 accommodates only ifTypes for sonet (medium/line/section), path and vt.
i have not seen proposals to include virtual concatenation but
i'll copy this to the atommib discussion list for any other comments.
see http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/atommib-charter.html
in case you're not subscribed to that list. that place shows
also the current sonet mib activities.

kaj

>Thanks in advance,
>
>Tom.
>-----------------------------
>Thomas Jordan
>Software Analyst,
>Optical Networks,
>Marconi, Poole U.K.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Kaj Tesink
Telcordia Technologies
Email  [email-masked]
Tel    732.758.5254
Fax    732.758.2269
Postal 331 Newman Springs Rd
        Red Bank, NJ 07701
        USA

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:07:37 -0800 (PST)

Thomas Jordan wrote:
> modelled in the [SONET-MIB] as a separate layer, with its own ifIndex,
> and be layered above the constituent VC3s in the ifStackTable?  (This
> seens one way of abstracting virtual concatenation, which is essentially
> a form of inverse multiplexing).

Virtual concatenation post-dates RFC 2558 and so is beyond its scope.
That said, your proposal sonds like an eminently reasonable way to model
a virtually concatenated path.

> Are there any plans by anyone to write/adapt a standard MIB to include
> virtual concatenation?

I think that would be within the WG charter ... you might want to
consider either submitting an individual proposal, or attempting to
gather collaborators to submit a proposal.

Just out of curiousity -- what performance parameters would be monitored
at the virtually concatenated path layer?  I've not followed the ANSI
work, if any, on this ... I guess I should look at the latest T1.231
drafts to see that's there.

Mike