RE: Please help to clarify some things!
Roy,
In terms of not confusing issues, can you clarify your statement "it will
not do for the carrier transmissions systems".
Do you mean that IP based network management (a) does not possess the
functionality, or (b) the people who may procure the equipment have other
ideas so they will not buy this irrespective of technical merit?
Further can we clarify here what you mean by "carrier transmission systems".
If these are existing pieces of equipment what you say is trivially true. If
not then you presume that there are entirely new systems to be built for
which either (a) or (b) above. Perhaps some of the purchasers can articulate
their view on (a) themselves.
Mick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Roy Bynum
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 1999 4:01 PM
To: mick@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'HSSG'
Subject: Re: Please help to clarify some things!
Mick,
I am not in any way suggesting a change in the way that IP based data
communications systems change the way that they do network management. I am
stating that it will not do for the carrier transmissions systems. Please
do
not confuse the separate issues.
Customer Ethernet switches at either end of a WAN path will still use the
SNMP
network management that is so common. It may be that some transmission
equipment vendors may even be convinced to provide some SNMP visibility at
the
10GbE interface on the long haul transmission line terminating or DWDM
equipment.
The common service carriers will want to have something other than SNMP
available for the equipment that they own, and the element management
communications for that equipment will be carried out of band. This is a
totally separate issue from the SNMP management of Ethernet switches.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
MCI WorldCom
Mick Seaman wrote:
> Roy, I agree that standards that have been put in place by the
> ITU/T1/BellCore people differ from those in the IP data world. I strongly
> disagree that the IP data world does not provide an adequate framework for
> providing commercial data services that the enterprises that use them
would
> regard as mission critical. So from my point of view I can fully accept
that
> a difference exists as a fact but I am not in the least motivated to
> accomodate this difference by wrecking the very successful foundation that
> we have in the Ethernet world, nothing that has been said convinces me
that
> the difference represents a necessity for change on our part.
>
> Mick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Roy Bynum
> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 1999 2:06 PM
> To: mick@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'HSSG'
> Subject: Re: Please help to clarify some things!
>
> Mick,
>
> I am not complaining about unreliable network management for IP data
> services.
> I was writing about a requirement as part of the ITU/T1/BellCore standards
> that
> the network management messaging communications for transmission systems
be
> fully reliable. This is something that IP data people have not had to
deal
> with. It comes down to a simple distinction between TCP based messaging
and
> UDP
> based messaging. It involves the standards for out of band network
> management
> on commercial transmission systems instead of the inband network
management
> standard that is used on IP based data systems. I have worked on both
types
> of
> systems and services for years. There is a difference. I have been
> attempting
> to get the IP data people to realize that the standards that are in place
> for
> commercial transmission systems and services are different than those for
IP
> based data systems.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> MCI WorldCom
>