Subject: Re: SONET PM trap definitions

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:55:49 -0500

At 04:56 PM 3/22/2002 -0500, Albert, David wrote:
>Hello Kaj,
>    I enjoyed reading your excellent RFC (2558) defining
>SONET/SDH Interfaces for SNMP.  Do you know whether
>a MIB definition exists for a PM reporting TRAP (i.e. a
>standard TRAP that can be sent periodically to a management
>system notifying it of a newly completed PM interval and the
>collected PM statistics rather than forcing the manager to
>poll the interval table?)  If you are aware of a standard that
>defines such a trap or can point me in the right direction, I
>would appreciate it.  Thank you!
>
>Sincerely,
>
>David Albert
>CIENA

hi David,

i'm not aware of current standard definitions for such traps;
there may be enterprise-specific traps. this mib was written based on
polling assumptions; the nms can set its own polling policy.
high error situations would generate linkDown traps and may trigger the nms
to inspect specific pm parameters.

I copy your comments to the discussionlist of the atommib wg
which is the appropriate forum to discuss these issues. See
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/atommib-charter.html
for subscription info.

this has also some mib extensions for SONET APS.

Note that 2558 is being evaluated right now and implementation experience is
being requested. Please send your implementation report to
Faye Ly <[email-masked]>
Use the compliance clause as guidance.

kaj

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

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: "Albert, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:39:54 -0500

Thank you for your reply and I will certainly subscribe
to the discussion group.  While I agree that severe 
performance problems might result in a linkDown
trap and cause a management system to poll performance
monitoring data, this is not the likely expected or desired 
behavior for SONET/SDH performance monitoring.
 
PM data is typically gathered every 15-minute and 24-hour
period (sometimes limited to non-zero periods) and recorded
in the management system for use in service layer management.
The PM data is often used to demonstrate to compliance with
performance guarantees that have been made to customers.  Some
systems also try to use performance data to do predictive failure
analysis.  Because this data is needed regularly, forcing management
systems to poll will simply double network traffic (GET/RSP instead
of TRAP) and increase the load on agents.
 
There are certain traps whose definition as part of a SONET/SDH
standard would IMHO greatly increase acceptance of SNMP as a 
management mechanism for telecommunications networks including:
PM, Faults (LOS, LOF, LOP, AIS, etc.), security, dbChange.
I would be happy to make a contribution in this area if you think it 
would help.
 
Regards,
David Albert
CIENA 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kaj Tesink [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 5:56 PM
To: Albert, David
Cc: Reddy, Sudheer; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: SONET PM trap definitions

Hello Kaj,

Sincerely,

David Albert
CIENA

hi David, 

I copy your comments to the discussionlist of the atommib wg
which is the appropriate forum to discuss these issues. See
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/atommib-charter.html <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/atommib-charter.html> 
for subscription info.

kaj

Kaj Tesink