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
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
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
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