64/66 on SONET (RE: AIS (RE: WIS OH))
Roy,
Thanks for your feedback, but your scenario looks like assuming
WAN-PHY and is not directly related to my current concern about
the stand-alone operation of LAN-PHY Attachment Unit.
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg02648.html
Therefore I take the liberty to change the thread for my comment
to your proposal/concern.
As I understand, you have proposed additional trouble-shooting
capability other than SONET-compatible OAM&P by defining new
payload mapping rule during the fault situations, assuming the
Ether-on-SONET style packet delineation. Also you claim 64B/66B
on SONET could not support such a trouble-shooting capability.
I am not yet convinced why we need such a trouble-shooting
capability beyond SONET-compatible OAM&P. However if the community
agree to supporting it as WAN-PHY functionality, it is easy to be
implemented even in 64B/66B on SONET; just defining another LSS
control code.
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/may00/ishida_1_0500.pdf
Therefore I DO support 64B/66B on SONET.
Best Regards,
Osamu
At 05:38 00/06/10 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg02650.html
> Part of my presentation in Ottawa covered just such a scenario without
> the need for SONET overhead processing at the PHY. Please see "local
> and remote link failure indication" on page 9 of
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/may00/bynum_1_0500.pdf.
> Unfortunately, 64B/66B will not support this. Block coding can not
> support any of the remote trouble shooting functionality that service
> providers are used to have available. Howard Frazier made a comment
> to this effect at the Ottawa meeting. This lack of functionality is
> one of the primary reasons that I continue to not support 64B66B.
---------------------------------------
Osamu Ishida,ishida@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NTT Network Innovation Laboratories
TEL:+81-468-59-3263 FAX:+81-468-55-1282
---------------------------------------