Re: Break Link and Remote Fault
Shawn,
This is a possible replacement for the OAM&P features of
LSS. How can we use packets to report break link and remote
fault?
Ben
"Rogers, Shawn" wrote:
>
> I agree there was some FUD implying LSS was a form of AN, however the
> main point I heard against LSS was it's use of Inter Packet Gap
> (IPG). The 802.3 has resisted the use of IPG for anything, time and
> time again. I do not see positive movement on supporting LSS as long
> as it is done in the IPG.
>
> If there was a way to take LSS out of the IPG - define a special MAC
> frame, say, it would likely gain favor.
>
> Shawn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Devendra Tripathi [mailto:tripathi@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 11:42 AM
> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Break Link and Remote Fault
>
> I agree with the comment. I think this is fairly simple. Moreover this
>
> mechanism is so
> easy to adopt for usage in dark fiber cases, if and when we want.
>
> Tripathi.
>
> At 11:34 PM 7/15/00 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >Ben,
> >
> >Thanks for taking this direction, I believe it's the right one. The
> LSS
> >proposal
> >did very well at the La Jolla meeting in spite of the FUD (Fear,
> >Uncertainty and
> >Doubt) use to confuse as significant number of members of the
> P802.3ae
> >committee. This is clearly evident in the voting results on the LSS
> proposal:
> >Yes: 55, No: 32, Abstain: 43. The voting results show that 63.2% of
> 802.3
> >voters
> >are in favor of the proposal and 33% of all voters abstaining. Also
> noteworthy
> >is that the highest abstention percentage for any other Logic track
> motion was
> >on the SUPI vote, for which 21.2% of all voters abstained.
> >
> >Among the FUD that targeted the LSS proposal was the comparison to
> >Auto-Negotiation. This can't be farther from the truth.
> Auto-Negotiation is a
> >handshake protocol including timeouts, acknowledgments, and multiple
> possible
> >responses to any request. LSS employs no handshakes whatsoever and
> employs
> >simple and continuous side A to side B signaling while a particular
> condition
> >exists..
> >
> >Another FUD element was the argument stating that there is no
> P802.3ae
> >objective
> >for either Remote Fault or Break Link. I'd like to point out that
> there is
> >little correspondence between objectives and actual functions and
> >features. For
> >example, there is no objective to perform link initialization, but
> clearly
> >this
> >is a necessary function. I assume that there is a desire to include
> Break Link
> >and Remote Fault functionality in P802.3ae, objective or not.
> >
> >LSS employs simple word oriented signaling at the Physical layer and
> may be
> >transported by all LAN interfaces. In addition to Break Link and
> Remote Fault,
> >LSS possesses the flexibility to be used to transport LAN OAM&P
> >information. It
> >just doesn't get much simpler than this. I strongly encourage any
> >simplifications to LSS protocol.
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >Rich
> >
> >--
> >
> >"Brown, Ben [BAY:NHBED:DS48]" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The LSS proposal was not initially accepted to be part
> > > of draft D1.0. The opponents of this proposal felt that
> > > this was too complicated a method for reporting Break
> > > Link and Remote Fault. Since I've heard many times on
> > > this reflector and in the meetings that, if a proposal
> > > is going to be shot down a substitute should be made to
> > > take its place, I'd like to request just such a substitute.
> > >
> > > Another thing to remember. According to Jonathan's
> > > schedule, this was the "last new proposals" meeting.
> > > I'll be interested to hear proposals for break link
> > > and remote fault reporting that do not include major
> > > new ideas.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ben Brown
> > > P802.3ae Logic Track Chair
> > >
> > > --
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > Benjamin Brown
> > > Router Products Division
> > > Nortel Networks
> > > 1 Bedford Farms,
> > > Kilton Road
> > > Bedford, NH 03110
> > > 603-629-3027 - Work
> > > 603-624-4382 - Fax
> > > 603-798-4115 - Home
> > > bebrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > -----------------------------------------
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
> >Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
> >nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
> >2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Devendra Tripathi
> Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation
> 3100 De La Cruz Boulevard
> Santa Clara, CA 95054
> Phone: (408) 986-4380 Ext 103
> Fax: (408) 986-6050
> ********************************************************************
>
> Web: http://www.vitesse.com
--
-----------------------------------------
Benjamin Brown
Router Products Division
Nortel Networks
1 Bedford Farms,
Kilton Road
Bedford, NH 03110
603-629-3027 - Work
603-624-4382 - Fax
603-798-4115 - Home
bebrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------