2.3.1 ADSL MIB (adslmib)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 48th IETF Meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 18-Jul-00


Michael Sneed <mike.sneed@go.ecitele.com>
David Allen <dallan@nortel.ca>

Operations and Management Area Director(s):

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>

Operations and Management Area Advisor:

Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>

Technical Advisor(s):

Kaj Tesink <kaj@research.telcordia.com>


Faye Ly <fayely@3com.com>
Greg Bathrick <greg.bathrick@nokia.com>

Mailing Lists:

In Body: subscribe/signoff XDSLMIB
Archive: index XDSLMIB/get <archivename>

Description of Working Group:

The ADSL Working Group is chartered to define a set of managed objects to be used for management of Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line services as defined by ANSI T1.413. The initial effort will define those management objects common to all ADSL lines regardless of line-code.

In the second phase of its work the group will accomplish the following work items:

1) define a supplementary set of managed objects which provide additional functions as defined by ITU G.997.1. This supplemental MIB will include objects for the management of ADSL "Lite" as defined by ITU-T G.992.2 and full rate ADSL as defined by G.992.1. 2) the group will continue to support promotion of the initial document through the standards process by collecting data on implementation and interoperability experience. 3) define a set of managed objects to enable automated provisioning and management of ADSL CPE.

The devices to be managed using these managed objects will include:

1) Access provider equipment containing ATU-C modems, such as DSLAMs, and

2) Subscriber equipment containing ATU-R modems such as routers, NIC cards, and standalone modem devices.

The MIBs defined by this group will be generated using SMIv2, will be consistent with the SNMP management framework, and will describe the relationship of the objects defined to existing MIBs such as those described by RFC2233, and RFC2515. The working group will consider the input of the ADSL forum and the ITU.

Goals and Milestones:



Submit Internet-Draft to cover subscriber equipment



Meet at Chicago IETF to review Internet-Drafts



Submit Internet-Draft to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard.

Jul 99


Meet at Oslo IETF to review new Internet-Drafts and discuss implementation experience on initial MIB

Sep 99


Submit supplementary Internet-Draft to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard.

Sep 99


Submit CPE provisioning and management draft

Dec 99


Submit CPE provisioning and management draft to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard.


Request For Comments:







Definitions of Managed Objects for the ADSL Lines

Current Meeting Report

Mike Sneed, Dave Allan co-chairs, Mike chaired, Dave took minutes.



New mailing list was announced:

In Body: subscribe/signoff XDSLMIB
Archive: index XDSLMIB/get <archivename> <archivetype>

Rajesh Abbi introduced as co-editor of the HDSL2 MIB draft.

Ext MIB status

Ext MIB has been recommend to be moved to proposed standard. Its in the queue.

DSL Forum Update

A liason letter from the DSL Forum regarding comments on the HDSL2 MIB was presented:

Gavin Young, DSL Forum Technical Committee Chair

Date: 8/9/00
Subject: Comments on 70.170 "IETF Internet Draft for HDSL2 management"

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments to your Internet Draft, "Definitions of Managed Objects for HDSL2 Lines" also known as draft-ietf-adslmib-hdsl2-00.txt. We would like to strongly recommend the following actions to be taken by the IETF ADSLMIB working group:

1. Expand your working group scope to include the management of SHDSL. It is also suggested to provide a single MIB for both line code technologies.

2. Provide a copy of this Internet Draft for our technical review at our August 29, 2000 meeting. Deadline for this submittal is August 21, 2000. We will provide a liaison letter upon review.

3. Schedule your Internet Draft working group last call to commence after the aforementioned DSL Forum meeting.

4. Take the RFC-2662's structure into consideration where appropriate when developing this new Internet Draft.

5. Please make the following content and editorial changes to the Internet Draft:

Thank you for your consideration on these comments.

Gavin Young

Cc: Greg Bathrick, IETF Liaison Officer

At this point it was decided to move directly to the HDSL2 MIB presentation, rather than attempt to address the liaison points directly.

Definition of managed objects for HDSL2 and SHDSL lines, Bob Ray/Verilink

Draft expanded to include SHDSL. Based upon ANSI T1E1 42000-006 and ITU G.991.2 (G.SHDSL). Originally did HDSL2 as a T1 replacement, then moved to do SHDSL to include E1.

HDSL2 support

MIB written so DS1 can be excised quickly. SHDSL is multirate HDSL2 without mandatory DS1 interface. Setting speed and disabling remote testing is the difference.

Topology: A HDSL2 line consists of at least 2 modems HTU-C and HTU-R. May also include up to 8 regenerators (HRUs).

Suggestion to re-write the conformance w.r.t the DS1 items vs. RFC 2495.
(Faye Ly etc.)

Topology treats each modem on the line as an end point. Stats can be retrieved on a per modem basis. EMS can do any number of per segment or per line abstractions given this underlying infrastructure.

Orkit's comments on RFC 2662 alignment. Response is this is symmetric unlike ADSL. There is no benefit to replicating the structure of the ADSL MIB. You'd double or triple the number of required tables. Better off with a single structure and an index. HDSL is different in that it has repeaters.

Leon Bruckman/Orkit, our proposal included a way to deal with repeaters.

Rob: The underlying MIB supports multiple views. It's up to the management app to do what is required to provide the requisite abstractions.

Faye: also has to do with the number of tables fetched.

Rajesh Abbi/Alcatel: modeled a link as a concatenation of C-R pairs.

Clarification: the EOC is between the end device and each repeated, it is not span by span.

Issue appears to be viewing the modems at either end of a line as a unique paired entity vs. simply indexed identical items.

No resolution, going to the list.

Faye: request that ITU references be added to the MIB.

Performance monitoring, lots of input to expand to 30 days, (last 29 optional). Rolled up total.

Discussion of textual conventions.

Profiles, lots of profiles.

Yaron Lederman: Missing a power spectral density parameter, agreed, noted.

Known issues:

Added from Yaron:

Faye: Consider moving the maintenance stuff to another MIB or segment it.

RFC 2662 - seeking implementation experience.

Yaron: we can provide information.
Bert: advance to draft, Mike: may have to do a turn at proposed based on the issues that have come up.

Meeting Closed.

Note that there is post meeting discussion of an interim meeting to sort out
issues with the HDSL2


None received.