Subject: questions to RFC1695

From: "Lochum Christian (NTC/Dusseld)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:45:00 +0200

Hello,

I am SW designer and I have some questions regarding the interpretation of
the standard. I tryed to follow the archive, but even there I didn't find
the answer. I tryed to look at existing implementation and I even thought
they are wrong.

It would be realy helpful, if you could find the time to answer these
questions.
So here are the question:

1) Do I have to create an entry in the atmVplTable, before I can create an
entry in the atmVclTable with the same VPI value?
For example, if I want to terminate a single VCC, which is transported
inside a VPC, that also is terminated inside my node.
Do I have to create an entry at the atmVclTable and atmVplTable?

In the Simple Times from august 1994 Volume 3, Number 2 Kaj Tesink wrote:
"This article illustrates [..] the configuration of a VCC between hostA and
hostB through on ISS. It assumes that the underlying VPLs are established."

But in the new draft-ietf-atommib-atm1ng-06.txt it is defined:

 atmVplTable         OBJECT-TYPE
                    SYNTAX         SEQUENCE OF AtmVplEntry
                    MAX-ACCESS     not-accessible
                    STATUS         current
                    DESCRIPTION
                     "The Virtual Path Link (VPL) table.  A
                      bi-directional VPL is modeled as one entry
                      in this table. This table can be used for
                      PVCs, SVCs and Soft PVCs.
                      Entries are not present in this table for
	   the VPIs used by entries in the atmVclTable."

                    ::= { atmMIBObjects 6}

I think the interpretation has changed and I will only create an Entry for
the VCC.
Is this right?

But, if you model it this way. How do you give the traffic params for the
VPL?

2) If an entry is created in the atmVplTable and it is not cross connected
is has an adminStatus, but if I later cross- connect this entry to another
Vpl the adminStatus vanishes.
But how is than the operStatus be invluenced. Should it follow the
adminStatus of the according atmVpCrossConnection?

Best regards

Christian van Lochum

---

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 16:43:06 +0000

Christian,

the short answers:
1) yes, the interpretation has changed
2) i'm confused on the question
see annotations below

kaj

------------------------------------------

>I think the interpretation has changed and I will only create an Entry for

yes that is correct

>But, if you model it this way. How do you give the traffic params for the

you dont - it may be difficult to correlate separate traffic param sets for a
VCC and for the underlying VPL anyway. however, if you really want to do
this then you would have to configure separate VPL and VCL entries.

>adminStatus of the according atmVpCrossConnection?

my confusion is perhaps the relationship with 1) (if any).
if you use the VPL to support a VCL that is crossconnected in the next node
you can not also start crossconnecting that VPL in the same node.

>Christian van Lochum

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

Kaj Tesink
Bellcore
Email  [email-masked]
Tel    732.758.5254
Fax    732.758.2269
Postal 331 Newman Springs Rd
       Red Bank, NJ 07701
       USA

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