Subject: Re: PM parameters in MIB

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:20:47 -0400

hi jane,

the latest version of 2558 is posted at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/atommib-charter.html
and is ready to be reissued as RFC.
the issue of additional PM parameters has come up
from time to time; if sufficient interest exist for
that a supplemental mib could be created.
i copy this also to the atommib wg which is the
discussion list for this topic.

regards,

kaj

At 10:21 AM 9/10/2002 -0700, Jane Chen wrote:

>Dear Mr. Tesink,
>
>I am working on OEO switch (Line terminator) for Altamar Networks.  I have 
>a question about PM parameters' standard.
>
>In rfc2558.mib (revision:9810190000Z) includes ES, SES, CV and UAS for 
>section, line and path
>In sonet_sup.mib(revision:9807131752Z) includes FC, PPJCGen, NPJCGen, etc.
>
>FC is one of standard PM parameters and is required by many vendors such 
>as Wouldcom.  My question is why FC is not in standard 
>rfc2558.mib.  Should we use sonet_sup.mib which is not standard mib?  Do 
>you have updated version of rfc2558.mib or some other replacement of 
>rfc2558.mib?
>
>It is very important for us to select right mib to start with.  Your 
>response will be very appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>Jane Chen
>650-864-1738

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

Kaj Tesink
Telcordia Technologies. In.
331 Newman Springs Road
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Email: kaj @research.telcordia.com
Tel: (732) 758-5254
Fax: (732) 758-4177

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

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:58:23 -0700 (PDT)

> In rfc2558.mib (revision:9810190000Z) includes ES, SES, CV and UAS for 

There is a more up-to-date revision, 200111070800Z, which is ready to
submitted to the IESG for consideration as a Draft Standard.  A URL
for the Internet Draft containing this revision is:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2558bis-00.txt

A URL for the latest version of its companion PerfHistTC-MIB is:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2493bis-00.txt

> In sonet_sup.mib(revision:9807131752Z) includes FC, PPJCGen, NPJCGen, etc.

That was published in <draft-kchapman-sonet-sup-mib-00.txt>, which is
an expired individual submission Internet Draft.  It does not have any
official standing (its base OID node is listed as "transmission xx", 
which means "a yet-to-be assigned node under transmission").

> you have updated version of rfc2558.mib or some other replacement of 

There is no IETF standard MIB for any of the following:

- notifications for SONET performance failures as defined
  in ANSI T1.231-1997;
- notifications for SONET threshold crossing alerts TCAs
  as defined in ANSI T1.231-1997;
- provisionable thresholds for SONET TCAs;
- any SONET failure counts, SONET "other indicators",
  or optional SONET performance parameters defined in
  ANSI T1.231-1997;
- current and previous 1-day SONET registers as defined
  in ANSI T1.231-1997.

Similar SDH-related things are also lacking.
Also, the SONET-MIB as defined in RFC 2558 or
draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2558bis-00.txt lacks the
capability to provision SONET or SDH interfaces.

All of these missing items could be handled in one or more SONET
supplemental MIB modules, provided that interested parties would
(1) make a proposal to add the relevant SONET supplemental MIB
modules to the AToMMIB charter;  and (2) write Internet Drafts
containing the MIB modules and do the necessary legwork to move
them through the standardization process.

> response will be very appreciated.

My recommendation is that you use draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2558bis-00.txt
as a starting point if you will be supporting STS192c or STS768c path
terminations;  otherwise start with RFC 2558 (the only technical
change introduced was support for these higher speeds for path
terminations).  If in the short term you need additional parameters,
then I recommend that you put them in enterprise-specific MIB modules,
with the tables organized in the same way as those in the SONET-MIB.
Some or all of those enterprise-specific MIB modules could be used as
a starting point for standardized SONET supplemental MIB modules, if
you or someone at your company is willing to do the required legwork.

As it happens, I know of at least two vendors that have written
enterprise-specific modules based in sonet_sup.mib(revision:9807131752Z)
as published in <draft-kchapman-sonet-sup-mib-00.txt>.  Be aware that
this MIB module has some organizational differences from the SONET-MIB
that were contentious when it was originally proposed (specifically,
it does not separate the current interval count from the historical
counts);  also, the notification definitions were awkward in that
they rely on unneeded auxiliary parameters.

I hope this advice helps.

Mike Heard