Re: AW: Deconstructing OAM&P
Ed,
Until 802.3 went full duplex, it could not be used in the MAN or WAN because of
timing limitations. Full duplex 802.3 does not have collisions like the coax
version, or the half duplex version. That is why full duplex 802.3 has a higher
operational utilization than half duplex does. Even then, 100BaseFX had a full
duplex version, yet it did not make a major impact in the MAN or WAN environment.
The reason that ATM did not make at the desktop is because SAR is just too
expensive. The operations support capability of ATM will continue to be leveraged
in the WAN services environment for a while. If you could see the number of
startups and other vendors that continuing to do ATM development for the services
industry, you would understand what I writing about. The problem is that SAR is
still very expensive. If 10GbE has any kind of operations support capability, ATM
will never see a major OC192C deployment. I think that this may be why the ATM
forum is working to develop a version that does not have as much SAR in it.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
MCI WorldCom
NetWorthTK@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Comments:
>
> We all enjoyed the very informative discussions on "data" versus "Telco."
> However, I believe from the reflectors the members' opinion remain about the
> same as when we left Montreal meeting. Let us have MAC/PLUS using 10 Gbps
> with Ethernet protocol, and MAC/PHY using 9.58464 with SONET protocol --
> solve the speed conversion issue. We have several realistic speed conversion
> proposals to be finalized, or to be voted by members.
>
> The simplicity and cost-effectiveness of Ethernet is the "KING" in the
> networking industry including both "Data" and "Telco" sectors, since the
> explosion of Internet. From my intensive past experience in "ATM_Formu
> activities," it confirmed the market requirement, again, simple and
> cost-cost-effective technology rules the networking industry -- ATM (overly
> complex traffic control) lost to Ethernet (simply let it collide).
>
> I do not see the "duplex optical 802.3" has anything to do with 802.3 being
> implemented to WAN. The only reason WAN adopting 802.3 is that WAN lacks the
> "magic touch" to cost-reduce it to compete in the marketplace; therefore, WAN
> borrows Ethernet "magic touch" in cost-effectiveness to stay in marketplace.
> Both WAN and LAN need each other to foster coexistence, but not to impose it
> to the other.
>
> The ample arguments from many "data" people to keep HSSG remaining an
> Ethernet rather than SONET by itself is the proof of the wisdom of those
> people "knowing how top keep it simple and cost-effective."
>
> I will not overly worry about WAN controlling HSSG. If they know how to do
> it, they will do it without waiting for HSSG anyway. Now they are looking
> for joint-corporation between LAN and WAN, which is the right approach by the
> majority of HSSG members agreeing to follow.
>
> Regards,
>
> Edward S. Chang
> NetWorth Technologies, Inc.
> NetyWorthTK@xxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> > If you could turn back time, and do away with full duplex optical 802.3,
> you
> > might could prevent the expansion of 802.3 into the WAN environment.
> > Unfortunately, time can not be erased, or the previous work done by the
> > 802.3 WG. 802.3 is already being implemented over WAN services. The only
> > problem is that it can not manage itself. I would much rather see the HSSG
> > control the standard than allow other standards organizations that have
> > other agenda's take control it.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
> > MCI WorldCom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Walter Thirion wrote:
> >
> > > This statement is exactly what many people are afraid of and what we
> > > tried desperately to separate in the speed ad hoc. Asking 802.3 to buy
> > > into the WAN management protocol is going to be very difficult. It is
> > > similar to the problem we've been having trying to separate the line
> > > code from the MAC/PLS speed.
> > >
> > > Walt
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 8:17 AM
> > > > To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Cc: Heiles Juergen; HSSG
> > > > Subject: Re: AW: Deconstructing OAM&P
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rich,
> > > >
> > > > I do not think that an OC rate MAC/PHY would have been
> > > > suggested by several
> > > > different people if it were not for the OAM&P issue.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Roy Bynum
> > > > MCI WorldCom
> > > >
> > > > Rich Taborek wrote:
> > > >