re - Last Call: Definitions of Managed Objects for HDSL2 and SHDSL Lines to Proposed Standard
last call comment:
Following items should be considered
1) hdsl2ShdslMaintPowerBack.does not support "disable" value
which is required in our implementation .
2) Line Probe - this feature is referred to in ITU-T G.991.2 as PMMS
(Power Measurement Modulation Session).
An objcet should be added to support this feature.
Suggested object for line probe:
hdsl2ShdslSpanConfLineProbeEnable OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX INTEGER
{
disable (2),
enable (3)
}
MAX-ACCESS read-create
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"This object enables/disables support for Line Probe
of the units in a SHDSL line . When Line Probe is
enabled,
the system performs Line Probing to find the best
possible rate.
If Line probe is disabled, rate adaptation phase is
skipped,
to shorten set up time."
::= { hdsl2ShdslSpanConfProfileEntry 15 }
Thanks,
Yig'al Hachmon
RAD Data Communications LTD.
Question from newbie
Hello all, I am very much in support of the things IETF is accomplishing and the direction it seems to be headed wrt to MIB guidance and oversight. Many of my customers (i.e. NEMs) are starting to take notice of network management, but for the most part do not understand the dedication required at the network device level, in other words MIB instrumentation. I am trying to build a strong case for my customers to take MIB analysis, instrumentation, testing, et al seriously. Sort of a quick pros and cons comparison. I would like to ask for suggestions or arguments that supports my stance. I apologize if this isn't the forum for my request. If it isn't, I would appreciate some direction. Thanks, Mickey Newnam VP Business Development Cyberwerx, Inc. <>
Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
"J. Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > From: TOMSON ERIC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > do you really think that the IETF people (et al.) built IPv6 without a > > preliminary good consideration? > There are a lot of people in the IETF who think exactly that, > actually. And there are a lot of other people that don't. > (This message coming to you via the NAT box I bought in the hole-in-the-wall > computer store in the little strip mall right down the street, here in > Podunksville. Lucky you. If I had a NAT box at home, and I tried to connect to my corporate network through it, I would quickly learn two things: 1) It doesn't work (it's an IPsec based solution) 2) If I then called the Help Desk, their response would be "we don't support that configuration". YMMV. Thomas
earlier agendas
Before the last IETF meeting I asked some IETFers in my company about the rationale for having the final IETF schedule so close to the meeting date that one can't necessarily get a reduced-fare ticket for the days one would want to be there. I heard back that this is indeed a dead horse, so I guess I'm beating it publicly this time Perhaps a while back it was a given that people could afford the time and money to attend IETF for the entire week, and therefore the specific agenda is not so important. And various people say how important the cross-fertilization is, and how terrible it would be if people went to the IETF meeting just for a WG meeting or two and then went home. I've heard this viewpoint before, and I sympathize, but I think the whole scale of the IETF has shifted dramatically, and the IETF should be pragmatic. When there were 500 people attending, and they could all come for a week and know everything that's going on, that was fine. But the economic realities can impinge on a company's ability to send dozens of people across an ocean (or even halfway across a continent) for a week at a time (though I do grant that if you do it for a week, at least you can get the cheap airfare :), and the people who participate have ever-increasing other demands on their time. Has anyone done a study to get an idea of what fraction of attendees currently stay for what fraction of time? This might shed some light on the subject. It's one thing to decree that it's a good idea, and it's another thing to recognize that in practice maybe that's not the way it works anymore... BTW, I also heard that WG/BOF chairs would kvetch if they had to ask for a slot earlier. I can't buy this whatsoever -- if the whole schedule were known well in advance to start and end two weeks earlier, where's the pain? Fred
