2.4.1 ADSL MIB (adslmib)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 49th IETF Meeting in San Diego, California. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 12-Oct-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, Chair, Dave Allan, co-chair-scribe

Agenda bashing

Document Status
- supplementary objects draft is awaiting AD review.

DSL Forum Liaison
- liaison letter needs to be posted to the list.
- Forum had a preview of some of the work done on VDSL by Bob Ray et al.
- DSLF would like to pull together ETSI, ANSI, ITU and FSAN to pull together some requirements to feed into the IETF.
- comments on the current internet draft. Mainly to do with G.992.1 annex H and annex C. Add an enumerated value to cover annex H and remove Annex C.

Q: (Mike): is it worth pulling this thing out of the queue to get this addressed.
A: No, (Rajeesh) issue is that the Japanese market is not covered. It clearly does belong in there.
Q: (Randy) This suggests that there will be on-going problems with this object and it is probably worth fixing now. There are examples of this sort of thing getting fixed without slowing down the work.
A: this can be done in a separate document and made to be IANA maintained.
A: (Bert) this should be OK as it is not a semantic change. If we agree that adding a few values to an enumeration is not a semantic change, then we do not need to recycle this document in the process.

Conclusion: It makes sense to fix it now, question is how, it is in the reviewers queue.
Bert: Get consensus on the list and send Bert the result and he will incorporate it into his review comments.

HDSL2/SHDSL draft 06 update (Bob Ray)

-Major revision following Pittsburgh. Incorporated Rajeesh's suggestion of a span table.
-Big change is maintenance table into two tables, endpoint and unit specific.
-A couple of SMIv2 compliance items.
- vendor ID changed to a string of size 9.
- text on how to deal with over or undercount of repeaters.
DSLF changes to the annex C enum addressed.
Mike: Security considerations needs verbage.
With these changes we should be ready for WG last call.
Noted that version -6 has a vacuous security section.
Q: Is the assumption that only providers ever get access to this stuff. If the customer has access, then you have security problems. Also issues with consistency of IF-INDEX across re-boots.

Issue is configuring a view, which puts an index in the view table. This means that the indexes in the view table need to be consistent. Established that this a non issue.

Security section should capture this specific caveat.

Question: In the document at the top of page 30 there is a reference to an experimental value not handed out by IANA. This needs to be addressed and the document needs to make this clear.
Value filled in when the document gets published as an RFC. The RFC editor takes care of this.
Recommendation is to get an experimental one now. Mike will request a number.

Mike: The important thing is to get agreement on a charter change and getting a timetable fixed.
This will be driven partially by DSLF. Need to avoid line code issues and attack the generic space.
For the AD's benefit, there is a lot of interest in working on this, no shortage of bodies.
We'll put something together on the list.

Path forward
Reviewed quickly.
Q: Can we drop the 'A" and become the DSL MIB WG. Bert thinks he could probably sell DSL MIB.


None received.