Re: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
Jonathan,
Given that humanity recognizes that it needs the benefit :-)
I think there is still the question of whether it is better to do this as part of 10GBASE-T or EFM-OAM. It would seem that the
latter would make more sense because (as Shimon says) 10GBASE-T is a PHY.
On the other hand, we could throw it at 10GBASE-CX - just to slow them down to match the rest of us...
Hugh.
Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
> Because, Shimon, you know as well as any that the symbol error counters do not exist two layers above the PHY.
>
> Also, just as with clause 24 and 36, 10 Gig needs to have the unidirectional aspects clarified during operation with OAM.
>
> Besides, if there is anyone that understands the concept of "benefit to humanity," we have ample evidence that you do. ;-)
>
> As 10 Gig passes the baton to 10GBASE-T, I beseech you guys to "do the right thing."
>
> jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shimon Muller [mailto:Shimon.Muller@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:47 AM
> To: atuncay@solarflare.com; stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org; Jonathan Thatcher
> Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
>
> > OAM is implemented as a sublayer above the MAC, using frames. So,
> > exactly what would be the trouble? Passing frames?
>
> Precisely.
> 10GBASE-T is a PHY project. So why are we arguing about support or
> non-support of functionality that is two layers above it?
>
> I don't believe there is any need for an objective with regard to
> OAM in 10GBASE-T. It's a non-issue.
>
> Shimon.