Subject: Call for implementation experience for RFC 2495 - DS1 MIB

From: "Faye Ly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:41:22 -0700

The working group chairs would like to invite you to send in your
implementation report for RFC 2495 (Definition of Managed Objects for
the
DS1, E1, DS3 and E2 Interface Types).  

You can send in your implementation experience to the mailing list
or to me directly ([email-masked]).  

Thanks.

-faye

Faye Ly
Senior System Architect
Salira Optical Systems
2698 Orchard Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
(408)325-8700 X116

---

From: Ron Carmona <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:50:56 -0700

Hi Faye,
 
At Accelerated Networks, Inc. (ANI), we have recently implemented RFC2495
(and 2496) in our IAD and MSAP devices.  These are Integrated Access Devices
(IADs) and Multi-Service Access Platform (MSAP) devices for merging voice
and data traffic over an ATM transport layer in a CPE and COE environment;
respectively.
The only issue that comes to mind is the configuration of the Line BuildOut
circuitry which is expressed (defined) in meters as dsx1LineLength.  But the
T1 chipsets that I have worked with (both here at Accelerated Networks and
previously at Nortel) contain a "transceiver mode" setting.  This setting
puts the T1 framer into either a "long haul" or a "short haul" mode.  For
Long Haul, the Line BuildOut is accepted by the chipset as a CSU dB
attenuation setting.  For Short Haul, the length setting (in feet) is
accepted by the chipset.
...So, in my MIB views (both Accelerated and Nortel), I have had to add a
proprietary extension MIB table definition to allow configuration for either
transceiver mode setting and a lineBuildOut object enumerated with units
corresponding to dB attenuation values.
Also, at this time, I'm not keeping all 96 15-min statistics intervals...I
wish that all RFC MIBs would define keeping the interval stats in the same
way.  They all are philosophically trying to achieve the same thing, but
each standard (RFC2495/2496, RFC2662 (ADSL), ATMF IMA MIB, etc.) seems to
have some particular idiosyncrasies that keep a MIB developer up late at
night...
Finally, Accelerated Networks would certainly like to be considered as a
candidate for interoperability testing.  Please let me know what the
expectations may be and any appropriate timelines.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, and/or
suggestions.
Thanks,
 
Ron Carmona
(805) 553-9680 x350
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
1.3.6.1.4.1.5059
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Faye Ly [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 9:41 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Faye Ly
Subject: Call for implementation experience for RFC 2495 - DS1 MIB
 
implementation report for RFC 2495 (Definition of Managed Objects for the