1 / 5

Subscriber Management MIB

Subscriber Management MIB. IPCDN Working Group November 2002. Draft -07 Rationale. Response to MIB doctor review in preparation for submission as Proposed Standard RFC Attempts to answer most of the concerns identified by Bert Wijnen. Review is still ongoing. What changed for -07.

demetria-vance
Download Presentation

Subscriber Management MIB

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Subscriber Management MIB IPCDN Working Group November 2002 Wilson Sawyer/ARRIS

  2. Draft -07 Rationale • Response to MIB doctor review in preparation for submission as Proposed Standard RFC • Attempts to answer most of the concerns identified by Bert Wijnen. Review is still ongoing. Wilson Sawyer/ARRIS

  3. What changed for -07 • Clarified population of entries which augment docsIfCmtsCmStatusEntry: values set at Registration; meaningless if not registered. • RFC 3291 convention for IP addresses replaces RFC 2851 (in particular, see InetPortNumber convention for TCP/UDP ports) • Root = { mib-2 XX } - not implementable until RFC Wilson Sawyer/ARRIS

  4. What changed for -07 (cont) • StorageType - minimally mandates nonVolatile for filters. (also DEFVAL=nonVolatile) • Index ranges widened (1024->2147483647) but compliance requirement is 16 addresses, 20 filters, 30 groups. • Numerous minor touchups. Wilson Sawyer/ARRIS

  5. Going Forward • Mib Dr.’s concern about possible duplication with RFC 2669 - can filters and CPE address control use a common MIB? (editor thinks no, but WG input is welcomed) • Possible concern about stated lack of support for IPv6. • Need WG input on changes and “clarifications”. (editor’s notion of “clarification” may not match the expectation of the WG) • CableLabs compliance stays at the -02 draft until this is issued as RFC. Wilson Sawyer/ARRIS

More Related