Subject: RFC 2515 Comment

From: "Nolish, Kevin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:47:12 -0400

There is a problem with the definition of the atmInterfaceTcTable
that ought to be addressed in the next revision of RFC 2515.  As
defined, the table does not interwork well with the Atm Forum
IMA Specification.

The problem is that the index of atmInterfaceTcTable is defined
to be the ifIndex of the ATM interface associated with the 
cell stream in question.  For IMA, there may, potentially, be
several different TC entities associated with a particular
ATM Interface.  Additionally, in IMA there's an extra ifEntry,
the IMA Group ( IANAifType atmIma(107) ) stacked between the AtmIf
and the underlying physical layer object.

In an IMA implementation, the TC layer is in one to one correspondence
with the underlying physical link.  Each physical link carrying its
portion of the inversed multiplexed cell stream may enter or exit the
LCD condition independently.  Together these links are used to transport
the traffic of an IMA group which would be in one to one correspondence
with an Atm Interface.

The simplest way to correct the MIB would be to use the ifIndex of the
underlying physical layer object, say Dsx1 interface, as the value for
the index of the atmInterfaceTCEntry table.

Kevin Nolish
724-742-6989
<mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "Faye Ly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:14:55 -0700

Kevin,

Nathan and I are preparing to ask for the implementation experience and
these are the comments we are looking for.  We will collect all the
issues and determine if how do we rev the RFC following the IETF
standard process.  Thanks.

-faye

-----Original Message-----
From: Nolish, Kevin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 11:47 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RFC 2515 Comment

Kevin Nolish
724-742-6989