However,
I understand from you, that there is an underlying assumption that there
is only a single Vlan per subscriber.
This is too limiting, it must be possible
to allow several VLANs per subscriber.
In
this case for a single subscriber there would be:
1.
Several Access-Loop-Circuit-IDs (one per local Vlan)
2.
Only one Access-Loop-Remote-Id (one per subscriber)
3.
Several Access-Aggregation-Circuit-Id-Binary (one per aggregation Vlan)
4. Several Access-Aggregation-Circuit-Id-ASCII (one per aggregation
Vlan)
5.
One set of DSL Line Attributes (one per local loop) - except for the Access
Loop Encapsulation (one per Vlan).
As
you can see, some of the information needs to be provided:
a.
Per local loop / subscriber.
b.
Per Vlan.
The
current message format, as I understand it, does not allow for this. It
would require sending a separate message per Vlan
but this will mean some information
must be repeated unnecessarily and increase the number of messages that
need to be sent. It should
be possible to:
A.
Separate the per subscriber information from the Per Vlan information.
B.
Bundle the per Vlan information into blocks so that for each Vlan there
is an additional block of information relating to that Vlan.
Best Regards,
Menachem Dodge
ECI Telecom Ltd.
Broadband Access Division
<Menachem.Dodge at ecitele.com>,
"Jerome Moisand" <jmoisand at juniper.net>, "Swami Subramanian"
<ssubramanian at juniper.net>, <thomas.haag at t-systems.com>, <norbert.voigt at siemens.com>
cc
<ancp at ietf.org>
Subject
RE: Layer 2 Parameters in the Protocol
document
Hi Menachem
The ACI sent in L2C
has the same format as what is sent by the DSLAM in DHCP opt 82 or PPPoE-IA
tag i.e. VLAN tag is part of the ACI. For each VLAN on a local-loop this
translates to a unique ACI.
Access-loop-remote-id is an operator
configured value for a given subscriber on the local-loop. The exact DSLAM
behaviour is outside the scope of the draft. However, I would assume if
there are multiple VLANs to the customer premise (one per subscriber),
then the relay-agent should insert a different access-remote-id per
subscriber. It is an optional TLV.. However, when present it will be unique
to the subscriber.
Access-Aggregation-IDs are optional
TLVs. These can be used to define DSLAM uplink attributes if needed.
-Sanjay
Regarding the document: "draft-wadhwa-gsmp-l2control-configuration"
and following the questions I raised at the meeting in Montreal,
I would like to request an explanation of how to handle:
1. Multiple Vlans in a single encapsulation.
2. Multiple Vlans and Multiple encapsulations.
1. Multiple Vlans in a single encapsulation.
a. Should an Access-Loop-Circuit-Id
be defined for each Vlan which means that this is a many-to-one relationship?
b. Should there
be more than one Access-Loop-Remote-Id's or is one sufficient? If more
are needed, how are they associated with an
Access-Loop-Circuit-Id?
c. Should there
be an Access-Aggregation-Circuit-Id-Binary and Access-Aggregation-Circuit-Id-ASCII
for each
Access-Loop-Circuit-Id defined?
d. I assume there are only one set of "DSL Line Attributes"
defined which are common to the physical line.
2. Multiple Vlans and
Multiple encapsulations.
a. If the
Vlan's are related to different "Access Loop Encapsulations"
how is this association between Vlan and encapsulation shown?