Subject: [ANCP] questions about section 7 of draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-04

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:55:40 -0700

Hi all,
When reading draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-04, I have questions about section  
7.

AncpAnSessionConfigEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
        ancpAnSessionConfigSessionId           Unsigned32,
        ancpAnSessionConfigRowStatus           RowStatus,
        ancpAnSessionConfigGsmpVersion         GsmpVersion,
        ancpAnSessionConfigGsmpSubVersion      GsmpSubVersion,
        ancpAnSessionConfigEncapsulationType   INTEGER,
        ancpAnSessionConfigCapabilities        AncpSessionCapabilities,
        ancpAnSessionConfigAliveTimer          Unsigned32,
        ancpAnSessionConfigPortReportShaper    Unsigned32,
        ancpAnSessionConfigAggregateReportShaper  Unsigned32,
        ancpAnSessionConfigTransportRetryTimer Unsigned32,
        ancpAnSessionConfigAncpRetryTimer      Unsigned32,
        ancpAnSessionConfigAnName              GsmpNameType,
        ancpAnSessionConfigPartitionId         GsmpPartitionIdType,
        ancpAnSessionConfigWindowSize          Unsigned32,
        ancpAnSessionConfigRelatedInterface    InterfaceIndex,
        ancpAnSessionConfigRelatedEntity       RowPointer,
        ancpAnSessionConfigSvid                VlanIdOrNone,
        ancpAnSessionConfigSPrio               Unsigned32,
        ancpAnSessionConfigCvid                VlanIdOrNone,
        ancpAnSessionConfigCPrio               Unsigned32,
        ancpAnSessionConfigNasIpAddressType    InetAddressType,
        ancpAnSessionConfigNasIpAddress        InetAddress,
        ancpAnSessionConfigEncapPortNumber     InetPortNumber,
        ancpAnSessionConfigNotifyDnEnable      TruthValue,
        ancpAnSessionConfigNotifyUpEnable      TruthValue
}

Questions:
This is to designate layer 2 entities when configuring ANCP session.  
But ANCP is a layer 3 entity, what's the purpose and sense to  
designate these marked item? It might also bring some implementation  
issues. For example, already designating OLT uplink physical serial  
number, if this port conflict with IP routing table, what should we  
do? Do we have to request the ANCP module to modify routing table? If  
there is no conflict, why does it designate layer 2 port after  
designating layer 3 port?

B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html

---

From: "DE CNODDER Stefaan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:00:09 +0100

Hi Tina,

These attributes looks quite confusing.  Originally they were not in the
MIB but they were introduced after a discussion on the mailing list (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ancp/current/msg00484.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ancp/current/msg00484.html> )

However since this is not the first time that the question is asked why
we have objects to bind a L2 interface to an ANCP session, maybe it is
best to remove them.  After all, an ANCP runs over IP and the NAS IP
address should be used to determine the outgoing VLAN or VPI/VCI.  But
if these objects are removed from the MIB, then what should we do with
this requirement from the framework document:

"

   R-117  It must be possible to configure the following parameters on

          the Access Node and the NAS:

          *  Parameters related to the Control Channel transport method:

             these include the VPI/VCI and transport characteristics

             (e.g.  VBR-rt or CBR) for ATM networks or the C-VLAN ID and

             S-VLAN ID and p-bit marking for Ethernet networks;

"

So the MIB is simply following the framework document.

What should we do?  We keep it or should we remove the object and the
requirement from the framework document?

regards,

Stefaan

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Tina TSOU
Sent: woensdag 24 maart 2010 3:56
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ANCP] questions about section 7 of draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-04

Hi all,

}

Questions:

This is to designate layer 2 entities when configuring ANCP session. But
ANCP is a layer 3 entity, what's the purpose and sense to designate
these marked item? It might also bring some implementation issues. For
example, already designating OLT uplink physical serial number, if this
port conflict with IP routing table, what should we do? Do we have to
request the ANCP module to modify routing table? If there is no
conflict, why does it designate layer 2 port after designating layer 3
port?

B. R.

Tina

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:59:29 -0700

Perhaps another MIB? There may be one already defined that could be applicable.

DE CNODDER Stefaan wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ANCP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp

---

From: "DE CNODDER Stefaan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:10:11 +0100

Hi Tom,

In the past we looked to other MIBs to see if we can make references
from the ANCP MIB to a defined L2 interface in another MIB.  At that
time if I remember correctly we could not find anything for VLANs, in
particular for the stacked VLANs.  But then still we have the question
why ANCP should be bound to a L2 interface.  So first we need to answer
the question whether or not we want to bind an ANCP session to a L2
interface.

regards,
Stefaan

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Taylor [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: woensdag 24 maart 2010 17:59
To: DE CNODDER Stefaan
Cc: Tina TSOU; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ANCP] questions about section 7 of
draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-04

Perhaps another MIB? There may be one already defined that could be
applicable.

> requirement from the framework document?
But