Subject: (FRNETMIB) FR/ATM Interworking MIB Comments

From: Rob Steinberger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:46:05 -0400

Developers here pointed out that frAtmIwfConnectionTable indexing is
confusing.  There are 6 indices to the table, but based on the
description only one appears to be needed.  The wording for
frAtmIwfConnIndex is:

     "A unique index to identify this interworking connection"

I realize that it is there to provide the point-to-multipoint
connectivity, but you need to read section 3.4 to get that information
out.  Our developers were viewing each row in the table as an
individual connection in that they display a single cross-connect.
This problem may be alleviated with a modification to the
DESCRIPTION clause.  We need to tell the user that this connection
index is a group of associated cross connections.  We may also have to
define better what makes a valid group.

However, there is nothing in either the indexing scheme or the text to
enforce that a "connection" is either point-to-point or
point-to-multipoint.  In fact, the connection index can simply be an
index of a group of simple connections.  All that is stated is that
the MUST use the same connection description.  It appears to be legal
with this scheme to have every connection in the device use the exact
same connection index as long as there is only one connection
description used.  This is not useful.

I view frAtmIwfConnIndex as a group of connections with the same
connection descriptor as well as a quicker search mechanism for
relation of DLCIs and VCLs.  We don't want to replace the connection
index with the connection descriptor because an alternative purpose
for the connection index is to speed up the relational search from the
DLCI or VCL to the connection.   This may be solved by making the
connection descriptor the second index of the table.  Alternatively,
text can be added to the DESCRIPTION clauses of
frAtmIwfConnectionDescriptor and frAtmIwfConnRowStatus to state the
limitations.

Further,  the DESCRIPTION clause of frAtmIwfConnRowStatus is too
limiting.  There is no need to be operational to configure a cross
connection.  This limitation prevents the user from configuring the
cross connection prior to making the network operational and is not
usable in the field.  Also, there is no need to check the admin status
on deleting a cross  connection in that deleting it should have no
effect on the administrative status of the links.

I think that all of the problems can be fixed by changes to only
DESCRIPTION clauses.

Rob Steinberger
Paradyne Networks

X-Info: To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
X-Info: 'unsubscribe frnetmib' in the body of the message.