RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...

["Booth, Bradley" <bradley.booth@intel.com>]

Title: Message

Ahmet,

 

Valid points.  Some may argue that EFM OAM didn't exist when 1000BASE-T or 1000BASE-X were written, but that has not prevented EFM OAM from having some affect on 1000BASE-X.  When 802.3ae was starting, 802.3ad (Link Aggregation) had not yet completed, but there was a decision to support Link Agg in 802.3ae.  The 10GBASE-T Study Group will have to make decisions about what portions of 802.3, 802.3ae, 802.3af and 802.3ah that we feel we should support or at least consider supporting moving forward.  For example, do we use Clause 22 management or Clause 45 management?  If we use Clause 45 but wish to support auto-negotiation to lower speeds, then we may need to consider supporting Clause 22 access to Clause 45 registers.  802.3 is a living document, so we need to be careful about what parts we do and do not want to consider in our effort.

 

As the Chair, I want to make sure we consider all aspects of creating a standard, from the technical feasibility up to the management requirements.  All opinions are valid, and open discussion is a great way that we make sure we haven't left stones unturned.

 

Thanks,

Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Ahmet Tuncay [mailto:atuncay@solarflare.com]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:28 PM
To: stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...

Brad, if this isn't an invitation to get one into trouble, I don't know what is.  In any case, my input would be that we need OAM no more than 1000BASE-T does, so I'd favor leaving out of the scope of the 10GBASE-T PHY.  If someone wants to implement some level of OAM in a derivative PHY device or use MAC level OAM functions they're free to do so.

 

Also, from my limited understanding of 802.3ah, OAM for the PHY layer is TBD, so I don't think we can consider the work being done in EFM as useful precedence at this point.

 

-ahmet 

-----Original Message-----
From: Booth, Bradley [mailto:bradley.booth@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:00 PM
To: stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...

Geoff,

 

Would you like to make a presentation to that effect? :-)

 

I see the Study Group as having three options related to OAM in our objectives:

1) state compliance with EFM OAM (and therefore possibly use it in our effort)

2) state that EFM OAM is beyond the scope of 10GBASE-T, excluding it from use within our effort

3) say nothing, and leave the use of EFM OAM capabilities up to those implementing the systems

 

Which of the three options would you prefer?

 

Would anyone else like to state a preferred option?

 

Thanks,

Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 8:23 PM
To: Booth, Bradley
Cc: stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...

Brad-

I would say that since...
        the same entity is likely to own both ends of the link
AND
        both ends of the link are expected to be in the same building.
AND
        both ends of the link are likely to be in the same room
that there is no need for management beyond that required for existing enterprise links.

Geoff


At 08:32 PM 2/18/2003 -0800, Booth, Bradley wrote:

Study group members,

As some of you may know, EFM (Ethernet in the First Mile or 802.3ah) has added Operation, Administration and Management (OAM) capabilities to their specification.  Like 802.3af DTE power, the study group needs to decide whether or not compliance with 802.3ah is within the scope of our effort, and most specifically the OAM capabilities.  This relates to compatability with our existing standards.  If there is anyone that would like to make presentations for or against compliance with 802.3ah or 802.3ah OAM, please let me know.

Thank you,
Brad

Chair, 10GBASE-T Study Group
bbooth@ieee.org