Subject: [ANCP] Layer 2 Parameters in the Protocol document

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 13:02:32 +0300

Hi,

        I sent this email over a week ago and have had no response. I 
would appreciate a reply on how the protocol handles: Multiple Vlans on a 
single encapsulation and also multiple encapsulations.

        Thank You Kindly.

        Best Regards,
        Menachem Dodge

========================================================================

Original Email:

        Regarding the document: 
"draft-wadhwa-gsmp-l2control-configuration" and following the questions I 
raised at the meeting in Montreal,
 I would like to request an explanation of how to handle:

        1.  Multiple Vlans in a single encapsulation.
        2.  Multiple Vlans and Multiple encapsulations.

        1. Multiple Vlans in a single encapsulation.

                 a. Should an Access-Loop-Circuit-Id be defined for each 
Vlan which means that this is a many-to-one relationship?
                 b. Should there be more than one Access-Loop-Remote-Id's 
or is one sufficient? If more are needed, how are they associated with an
                     Access-Loop-Circuit-Id?
                 c. Should there be an 
Access-Aggregation-Circuit-Id-Binary and 
Access-Aggregation-Circuit-Id-ASCII for each 
 Access-Loop-Circuit-Id defined?
                         d. I assume there are only one set of "DSL Line 
Attributes" defined which are common to the physical line.

               2. Multiple Vlans and Multiple encapsulations. 
                a.  If the Vlan's are related to different "Access Loop 
Encapsulations" how is this association between Vlan and encapsulation 
shown?

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

---

From: "Sanjay Wadhwa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:41:57 -0400

Hi Menachem
   The ACI sent in L2C has the same format as what is sent by the DSLAM
in DHCP opt 82 or PPPoE-IA tag i.e. VLAN tag is part of the ACI. For
each VLAN on a local-loop this translates to a unique ACI. 
Access-loop-remote-id is an operator configured value for a given
subscriber on the local-loop. The exact DSLAM behaviour is outside the
scope of the draft. However, I would assume if there are multiple VLANs
to the customer premise (one per subscriber), then  the relay-agent
should insert a different access-remote-id per subscriber. It is an
optional TLV.. However, when present it will be unique to the
subscriber.
Access-Aggregation-IDs are optional TLVs. These can be used to define
DSLAM uplink attributes if needed.
 
-Sanjay

        Regarding the document:
"draft-wadhwa-gsmp-l2control-configuration" and following the questions
I raised at the meeting in Montreal, 
 I would like to request an explanation of how to handle: 

                 a. Should an Access-Loop-Circuit-Id be defined for each
Vlan which means that this is a many-to-one relationship? 
                 b. Should there be more than one
Access-Loop-Remote-Id's or is one sufficient? If more are needed, how
are they associated with an 
                     Access-Loop-Circuit-Id? 
                 c. Should there be an
Access-Aggregation-Circuit-Id-Binary and
Access-Aggregation-Circuit-Id-ASCII for each 
 Access-Loop-Circuit-Id defined? 
                         d. I assume there are only one set of "DSL Line
Attributes" defined which are common to the physical line. 

Best Regards, 
Menachem

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 18:53:53 +0300

Hello Sanjay,

        Thank you for your email. 

        However, I understand from you, that there is an underlying 
assumption that there is only a single Vlan per subscriber.
This is too limiting, it must be possible to allow several VLANs per 
subscriber. 

        In this case for a single subscriber there would be:

        1. Several Access-Loop-Circuit-IDs (one per local Vlan)
        2. Only one Access-Loop-Remote-Id (one per subscriber)
        3. Several Access-Aggregation-Circuit-Id-Binary (one per 
aggregation Vlan)
                4. Several Access-Aggregation-Circuit-Id-ASCII (one per 
aggregation Vlan)
        5. One set of DSL Line Attributes (one per local loop) - except 
for the Access Loop Encapsulation  (one per Vlan).

        As you can see, some of the information needs to be provided:
        a.  Per local loop / subscriber.
        b.  Per Vlan.

        The current message format, as I understand it, does not allow for 
this. It would require sending a separate message per Vlan
but this will mean some information must be repeated unnecessarily and 
increase the number of messages that need to be sent. It should 
be possible to:
        A. Separate the per subscriber information from the Per Vlan 
information.
        B. Bundle the per Vlan information into blocks so that for each 
Vlan there is an additional block of information relating to that Vlan.

Best Regards,
Menachem Dodge
ECI Telecom Ltd.
Broadband Access Division

Tel:      +972-3-9268421
Mobile: +972-54-5788421
Fax:      +972-3-9287342
e-mail: [email-masked]
www.ecitele.com

"Sanjay Wadhwa" <[email-masked]> 
07/08/2006 17:41

To
<[email-masked]>, "Jerome Moisand" <[email-masked]>, 
"Swami Subramanian" <[email-masked]>, 
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
cc
<[email-masked]>
Subject
RE: Layer 2 Parameters in the Protocol document

Hi Menachem
   The ACI sent in L2C has the same format as what is sent by the DSLAM in 
DHCP opt 82 or PPPoE-IA tag i.e. VLAN tag is part of the ACI. For each 
VLAN on a local-loop this translates to a unique ACI. 
Access-loop-remote-id is an operator configured value for a given 
subscriber on the local-loop. The exact DSLAM behaviour is outside the 
scope of the draft. However, I would assume if there are multiple VLANs to 
the customer premise (one per subscriber), then  the relay-agent should 
insert a different access-remote-id per subscriber. It is an optional 
TLV.. However, when present it will be unique to the subscriber.
Access-Aggregation-IDs are optional TLVs. These can be used to define 
DSLAM uplink attributes if needed.
 
-Sanjay

        Regarding the document: 

Best Regards, 
Menachem