Subject: [ANCP] Wadhwa draft 01- Access-Loop-Circuit-ID comment

From: "Maglione Roberta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:13:44 +0200

Hi Sanjay and all,

               I have a comment regarding Access-Loop-Circuit-ID TLV
described in internet-draft:
'draft-wadhwa-gsmp-l2control-configuration-01'
Section 5.4.1, talking about Access-Loop-Circuit-ID, says: 
 
"Type (Access-Loop-Circuit-ID = 0x01): This is a mandatory TLV and 
 contains an identifier of the subscriber's connection to the access 
 node (i.e.  "local loop"). The "local loop" can be ATM based or 
 Ethernet based. The "Access Loop Circuit ID" has local significance 
 at the access node. The exact usage on the BRAS is beyond the scope 
  of this document. It is desirable that the format used for "local 
loop" identification in GSMP messages is similar to what is used by 
the access nodes in subscriber signaling messages when the access 
nodes act as "signaling relay agents" as outlined in [7] and [8]."
 
>From my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, the word "desirable" is
used to make this definition general enough to be applied to different
types of scenarios, in fact also DSL forum document WT-147 in section
5.3.1 says: "This document reuses the port addressing scheme specified
in WT-101. It should be noted however that the use of such a scheme does
not imply the actual existence of a PPPoE or DHCP session, nor on the
specific inter-working function present in the Access Node. In some
cases, no PPPoE or DHCP session may be present, while the port
addressing would still be desirable" 
 
However I think, IMHO, that if there is a scenario where either PPPoE
Intermediate Agent or DHCP IA is present the syntax used to identify the
Access-Loop-Circuit ID in GSMP messages must be the same used by PPPoE
IA or DHCP IA in order to simplify for the BRAS the correlation between
GSMP messages and actions to be performed when those messages are
received on different sessions identified by the same PPPoE IA.
For example if a BRAS receives a PORT-DOWN message sent by the DSLAM to
notify the the BRAS that a line went down, it makes sense that  BRAS
tears down all the PPP sessions associated to that line. In this case
having an  Access-Loop-Circuit ID in the PORT DOWN message that exactly
matches the PPPOE IA makes this operation simple because the BRAS can
associate the Access-Loop-Circuit ID, obtained from the PORTDOWN
message, with the same ID coming from PPPoE IA that identifies each
single PPP session. 

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks and best regards,

Roberta

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Roberta Maglione
Telecom Italia - Broadband Network Services Innovation
Via G. Reiss Romoli, 274
10148 Torino - Italy
Phone: +39 011 228 5007
e-mail: [email-masked]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

--------------------------------------------------------------------

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to [email-masked].

        Thank you

                                        www.telecomitalia.it

--------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp