Subject: [Hubmib] RE: [EFM] Performance monitoring, installation, trouble shooting .

From: "Andrew Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:37:31 -0800

Forgive my ignorance on the history of the following statement in RFC2665:

"Note that the ifTestTable is now deprecated.  Work is underway to
   define a replacement MIB for system and interface testing.  It is
   expected that the tests defined in this document will be usable in
   this replacement MIB."

The "Ethernet in the First Mile" group in IEEE 802.3 is looking at
requirements for management; specific requirements are for the minimisation
of "truck-rolls" (see message thread below - it talks about a PHY-level
loopback requirement). Has there been any further work on this in any IETF
WG? Was the ifTest stuff thrown out because it might do strange un-SNMP-like
things like cut off connectivity for some (arbitrary? predetermined?) period
of time?

Could someone fill me in on the history here?

Thanks,

Andrew Smith

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Matt Squire
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 8:43 AM
To: Roy Bynum
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [EFM] Performance monitoring, installation, trouble
shooting .

I'll repeat the current status of loopback within OAM.
- A ping connectivity test is a requirement.
- A loopback mode is a requirement.
- Controlling the state of the loopback mode at the other end of a link
is a requirement.

There is also a group of people that believe that the functionality of
loopback can be achieved without a loopback mode, but enhancing the MIBS
and the PHY functionality.  They are actively investigating the
possibility.  When and if they think they can show equivalent
functionality, the results will be presented to the reflector.  At that
point everyone can judge whether the alternate method provides
equivalent function.

Loopback itself is a function.  The function is used to fulfill certain
operational requirements.  If those requirements can be met with other
methods, and this point can be provent to the group as whole (including
Kent), then the other methods deserve consideration.  I don't think this
is in any way conflicts with Kent's statement (though I'm sure he'll
correct me if I'm wrong).

Loopback will remain a requirement until someone can prove to the OAM
group that there is a better way.

- Matt

Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> Kent,
>
> I have found that if you do not use strong enough language, the vendors
> that may not have what you require, will attempt to "interpret" your words
> so that they can mean something totally different than what you
> intended.  If I am correct, you may want to resend your comment and use
the
> words "our operations requires that ability".  If you check with your
> equipment "certification" people for edge access infrastructure, you may
> find that loop back functionality at the physical layer is a hard
> requirement, just like it is on T1/T3 infrastructure today.  I know that
it
> was a requirement the large service provider that I was previously with.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> At 04:18 PM 2/15/2002 -0800, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >Bob,
> >Loopback functionality is important for SBC, our operations need that
> >ability.
> >-Kent
> >
> >Kent G. McCammon
> >Broadband Access Group
> >SBC Technology Resources, Inc
> >4698 Willow Road
> >Pleasanton, CA 94588
> >925-598-1246
> >[email-masked]
> >

_______________________________________________
Hubmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib

---

From: "Andrew Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:37:31 -0800

Thanks,

Andrew Smith

-----Original Message-----

- Matt

the
it

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:39:43 -0500

On Sunday, February 17, 2002, at 02:37 , Andrew Smith wrote:
> The "Ethernet in the First Mile" group in IEEE 802.3 is looking
> at requirements for management; specific requirements are for
> the minimisation of "truck-rolls" (see message thread below - it
> talks about a PHY-level loopback requirement). Has there been
> any further work on this in any IETF WG?

Andrew,

	A bunch of OIDs in the DOCSIS 1.0 MIBs exist primarily
for the purpose of troubleshooting layer-1 plant
(== minimising truck rolls).  So those MIBs might represent
a useful point of reference for Ethernet in the First Mile
folks.  DOCSIS is not 802.3, but it does provide transmission
for Ethernet/802.3 frames over HFC cabling.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:39:43 -0500

Andrew,

Ran
[email-masked]