Subject: [ipcdn] RE: draft-itef-ipcdn-igmp-mib-04

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:56:31 -0700

To add to Howard's email, we are seeking input from the ipcdn list and some additional guidance from MIB experts on how to best draft the MODULE-COMPLIANCE statements based on igmp mib. 

To be specific, a CMTS device may have active/passive interfaces (NSI or HFC interfaces) and depending on the configuration and the mode of operation (active/passive), those interfaces can act as IGMP proxies only or routers. As a consequence, if I read the way docsis defines this correctly, in the igmpInterfaceTable for a CMTS, we have several entries (conceptual rows) with some columnar objects that do or do not apply depending on the configuration of the device.

So how do we best create logical groups to include the objects that must be supported by docsis devices?
To build on Howard's email, we've got a couple of options, 2 of which are listed here to start the discussion:
  1. Specify the object groups by cmts<Interface><Mode><igmpRole>: the issue here is it does not seem right to me to have compliance statements that vary depending on the interface type on the device;
  2. Specify the object groups by cmts<Mode><igmpRole> and select objects independently of the interface: issue here is depending on the interface & configuration, it can play a host or router (see below).

Any thoughts?  

Jean-Francois.
> -----------------------------------------------------
> |           Active DOCSIS IGMP Interfaces           |
> |---------------|-----------------------------------|
... snip
> |---------------------------------------------------|
> |      |        |Host Only   |                      | <- a PROXY
> |      | NSI    -------------|----------------------|
> |      |        |Host&Router |                      | <-an M-Router
> |      |        |            |                      |
> |CMTS  ---------------------------------------------|
> |      |        |Router Only |                      | <-a PROXY
> |      | HFC    ------------------------------------|
> |      |        |Host&Router |                      | <- an M-Router
> |      |        |            |                      |
> -----------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abramson, Howard [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:41 PM
> To: 'Dave Thaler (E-mail)'; 'Bill Fenner (E-mail)'
> Cc: Ipcdn List (E-mail); Rich Woundy (Work) (E-mail); 
> Jean-Francois Mule
> (E-mail); 'Greg Nakanishi (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: draft-itef-ipcdn-igmp-mib-04
> 
> 
> 
> Dave / Bill,
> 
> I am working with Rich and Jean-Francois to address the 
> comments provided on
> this draft by Dave and the MIB Doctor. Before we get to far 
> on the changes,
> we would appreciate your consideration of the following proposal.
> 
> This is greatly appreciated.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Howard Abramson
> 
> Goals:
>  . provide flexibility of implementation (e.g., not restrict
>    vendors' creativity)
>  . RFC-2933 and RFC-2236 compliance for Operator ease of use
>  . DOCSIS 1.1 compliance
> 
> Proposal:
>  . define "Interface Specific" compliance statements to describe
>    the minimum set of RFC-2933 objects that must be supported
>    by a DOCSIS 1.1 device.
> 
> Discussion:
>  . there is some confusion as to the correctness of this approach.
>    Specifically, can a device apply different compliance statements
>    to different interfaces.
> 
>  . the number of different types of DOCSIS 1.1 IGMP capable
>    interfaces is derived from the device type (CM or CMTS),
>    mode of DOCSIS 1.1 defined IGMP operation (active or passive),
>    and DOCSIS 1.1 interface (CMTS:NSI, CMTS:HFC, CM:HFC, CM:CMCI).
> 
>  . the compliance of a DOCSIS 1.1 IGMP capable interface is
>    also based on the 'implementation'. For example, the device
>    may be implemented as a Multicast Router or IGMP Proxy.
> 
>  . modifications to Section 3 and 4 of version 4 of this 
> draft follows.
>    The tables shown in section 4, below, will replace the existing
>    section of this draft (v4).
> 
>    in some cases the compliance statements come directly from
>    RFC-2933. This is true, as shown below, for both an Active and
>    a Passive CM HFC-side IGMP interface.

... snip
_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn