Conference azur::mcc

    In EFT V1.2  we have updated  DNA4 and DNA5 AMs to provide the services
    that are necssary to support NMF compliant circuits. 
    
    Providing the support for TCPIP links is in plan. I am not quite sure 
    when it will be available. If there is a STRONG business need  please
    let us know.
    
    
    Jesuraj
    
    (CIrcuit AM PL)

    Raj, SNMP entities are not NMF compliant. For V1.2, there is no
    commitment to make SNMP entities or any of their child entities
    conform to NMF. 
    
    We did implement a capability for some DNA4 and DNA5 child entities
    in the DNA4 and DNA5 AM. It was not feasible to do so in the SNMP
    AM because of a lack of development resources. It also was not 
    clearly understood to be an important issue until field test
    training. 
    
    We have some indications that some people consider it important for
    the circuit am. What I need to know is whether providing that
    capability will convince a customer to buy the circuit am. If any
    of your customers would make the purchase of the circuit am,
    contingent upon say the an SNMP.Interface child object being a
    valid endpoint for a circuit, please send me their name and level
    of commitment. 
    
    Note there are issues with vendors such as Wellfleet, Cisco, etc.
    They may not have implemented the interface objects from the MIB,
    specifically the operational state and administrative state MIB
    attributes.
    
    We have SNMP support for operational state and administrative state
    as high on our priority list for the first post V1.2 development
    cycle. If there is significant revenue to be gained (ie. at least
    one additional sale for either DECmcc or the Circuit AM), we will
    consider an interim release to get that feature in the hands of
    those customers that are willing to pay for it.
    
    In the event that a customer come forward with $$, then we need
    there requirements concisely defined. For example, Do they only
    need Wellfleet Router Interface objects as endpoints, or are they
    interested in having the TCP connection object also being an
    endpoint. In other words, I would like to understand how they
    will use the circuit AM so that I can verify that what I do for
    them meets their needs and satisfies their expectations.
    
    wally

If MCC is to be what it states it will do, this should be implemented. If a 
customer is managing a multiprotocol net he will lose the 'consistent' view
and mngmt methods which MCC is supposed to provide. I know economics comes
into play for engineering but I can't see how you wouldn't have this in the
plan. I know we don't have the money you're looking for but we definitely
need the consistent view and mngmt practices. And if we do, I would think
paying customers would also.

best regards,
brad...

    The circuit AM is not sold as a separate product, but is bundled in
    with the configuration package.  To the user, it's a basic function,
    found in other SNMP managers, and the fact that doesn't support IP but 
    does support Digital protocols will be noticed as another proprietary 
    nature of DECmcc Director.
    
    bill

    To Brad: It is in plan for a post V1.2 release. What I asked for was
    justification to provide an interim release sooner than that. I have
    been seriously asked to justify why it is needed in the plan, something
    stronger than rhetoric. I am looking for a single customer who thinks
    it is important enough to make a purchasing decision on it. I fully
    understand your point and that is why it is in plan. However, there
    is a question of WHEN to productize it. To make it happen sooner
    requires a customer name who feels that her/his use of circuit
    justifies making a financial commitment.
    
    To Bill: You are correct but in theory the circuit AM is available
    a la carte also. I am trying to qualify answers. If a customer is
    willing to buy something, that is a stronger statement than general
    interest. We have many things in plan. We have inadequate resources
    to do it all so we must prioritize. I am seeking information to justify
    the prioritization, specifically information which is more convincing
    in the current economic climate.
    
    wally

Wally,

Most of the DECnet sites are going on to use multiprotocol routers, ours and
others like Wellfleet, CISCO and Proteon(at least in Singapore these 3 
competitors are present).  This is because of the need for multivendor 
needs in most environment.

So there are TCP/IP links present in Digital customer sites.  And they want 
to be able to manage this circuit.  They want to be able to manage at the
interface level.  Probably, they are not so interested at the TCP connection
level.  Although if these is present, it might be of use in selling.

Since we are also selling Vitalink AM, can the circuit AM be made to operate
on these links too.

Also, with the SNA AM that is going to be released, the circuit AM might be
a benefit to capture the network management of IBM sites.

Having the circuit AM operate on SNMP, Vitalink and SNA link interfaces 
will definitely be a selling advantage to us, for BMS and the Circuit AM by 
itself.

Currently, I'm working on 5 proposals and each one of them require this.
We are proposing EMS for these customers, so the circuit AM is covered.

Hope this justification is enough to have a interim release to support
this functionality.

Regards
Raj
Network Specialist

    Support for TCP IP circuits (interfaces) as endpoints of a CIRCUIT
    global entity has been done. It is not in the EFT of V1.2, but will be in 
    SSB kit.
    
    
    Jesuraj
    CIRCUIT AM PL
    
    PS: Support for the SNA Circuits etc. can be added in fututure
        based on demands.
    

	THIS IS A GOOD NEW ! THANKS FOR HAVIN ADDED THIS FEATURE !

	REGARDS ,

	MARC