Subject: RE: [Adslmib] vdsl - ietf and dslf

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:02:36 +0200

Bob,

If NLC do not provide soon the definitions for the two alternative
parameters they mentioned (i.e., overhead-percentage and burst protection)
the best practical solution is according to your suggestion.

Best regards,
Moti Morgenstern

Senior Systems Engineer
ECI Telecoms Ltd.
Inovia Broadband Access Division
30 Hasivim St.
Petach Tikva, Israel 49133
Tel.: +972-3-9266258
Fax: +972-3-9268182
Cell: +972-55-786258
e-mail: [email-masked]
www.ecitele.com

                      "Bob Ray" <rray@                                                                                                 
                      pesa.com>                To:      <[email-masked]>                                                 
                                               cc:      <[email-masked]>                                                             
                      27/03/03 21:51           Subject: RE: [Adslmib] vdsl - ietf and dslf                                             

Moti Morgenstern writes:

>   (More seriously) The DSLF removed the SCM specific configuration tables
>   from the model after NLC claimed it's possible to configure SCM links
>   based on other (existing) parameters. Meantime, after the WT turned to
>   be a TR,  the DSLF realized that the decision was not 100% correct
>   because NLC assumed parameters that are not in the model. I suggested
>   (2-Mar-2003) to the IETF to fill the gap with two new generic
>   parameters, citing the parameters NLC mentioned. Those parameters
better
>   be inside or the resulted MIB will be suitable for MCM only. You
>   probably agree that it is fundamental to have a MIB that allows both
>   line codes.

To restate, DSLF agrees that the VDSL MIB, with the MCM and SCM specific
tables removed is quite suitable for both MCM and SCM VDSL as long as we
add the two objects you emailed earlier?  That one will be able to
configure
both MCM and SCM at that point?  If this is so, I'm ready to go!!!

From earlier mail:

>So, I suggest adding the two generic parameters Overhead (%) and Burst
>Protection (ms) to the MIB, in order to allow determining the Fast
Codeword
>Size and FEC Size for SCM links.

Just to clarify, do you mean for me to move (and rename)

        vdslSCMConfProfileFastCodewordSize
        vdslSCMConfProfileFastFecSize

to the vdslLineConfProfileTable?  I suggest augmenting the description
to state that they are intended for SCM links.  For MCM links, they
are to be fixed at 0.

Sure would be nice to have the line code specific aspects covered
in one MIB.  I would hope the MCM groups wouldn't complain too
much about two useless objects...

Is the above correct?  Rajesh?  Others?

Bob Ray
PESA Switching Systems

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