|
Bob,
Some
15 minutes monitoring stats are actually used for
'trend
analysis' in the LAN world as well. At least that
is my
own experience. But I am more than happy to
hear
your thoughts on this.
-faye
Preserve us from specifying a G.821 stats like
requirement in EFM for SLA monitoring. That has to be a vendor specific thing
driven by market requirements.
That's me with my LAN head on
:-).
Bob
Barrett
Roy,
Yes, some emails ago I did state that having a side band
not only ensure OAM traffic will go through but also
makes sure it doesn't step over to the user data traffic.
You know sometimes we get carried away with that
monitoring traffic every 15 minutes :)-
-faye
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Bynum
Sent: Thu 9/20/2001 3:10 PM
To: Harry Hvostov; Faye
Ly; Harry Hvostov; Roy Bynum
Cc: stds-802-3-efm
Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven
points
Harry,
I think that Faye is correct. If the
OAM is "frame" based, then it will
share the same bandwidth with the
customer traffic. Only if the OAM is
"side band" will it not
share the same bandwidth as the customer traffic.
Thank you,
Roy
Bynum
At 02:31 PM 9/20/01 -0700, Harry Hvostov
wrote:
>Faye,
>
>What I meant was that the OAM
control frames would not be forwarded outside
>the ePON
network.
>
>Harry
>
>-----Original
Message-----
>From: Faye Ly [mailto:faye@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent:
Thursday, September 20, 2001 2:19 PM
>To: Harry Hvostov; Roy
Bynum
>Cc: stds-802-3-efm
>Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's
seven points
>
>
>Harry,
>
>I hope I am
interpreting your message wrong but
>
>OAM traffic usually
terminates at the CPU of the
>network equipment. In our case,
there will be one
>control entity terminated at the CPU of the OLT
and
>one at ONU. Some OAM traffic proxied from OLT to
ONU
>will tranverse the PON link with user data destined
>for
either control end
points.
>
>-faye
>
>-----Original
Message-----
>From: Harry Hvostov [mailto:HHvostov@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent:
Thursday, September 20, 2001 11:08 AM
>To: 'Roy Bynum'; Harry
Hvostov; Faye Ly
>Cc: stds-802-3-efm
>Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM -
Faye's seven points
>
>
>
>Roy,
>
>The
intent is to terminate OAM control traffic on the ePON
network
>(OLT/ONU
>MAC service interfaces). Since the customer
does not have access to
>either
>the OLT or ONU ports,
customer traffic and ePON management traffic are
>effectively
separated. We do need to ensure that the
appropriate
>forwarding/filtering interfaces and mechanisms are in
place to
enforce
>this.
>
>Harry
>
>-----Original
Message-----
>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:roy.bynum@xxxxxxxx]
>Sent:
Thursday, September 20, 2001 8:15 AM
>To: Harry Hvostov; 'Faye
Ly'
>Cc: stds-802-3-efm
>Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven
points
>
>
>
>Harry,
>
>I do not like
the idea of inserting frames into the customer traffic.
I
>am
>not sure how it would work such that, for security
reasons, only the
>intended physical interface on a P2MP deployment
would receive the OAM
>Ethernet frames. Call me
paranoid.
>
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>
>At
11:33 AM 9/19/01 -0700, Harry Hvostov wrote:
> >Faye,
>
>
> >I would like to see a provision for Ethernet frame based
OAM. I believe
>
> >Ethernet OAM message transport is quite
viable for EFM and we should be
>
> >seeing some
>
>presentations detailing this approach.
> >
>
>Harry
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Faye Ly
[mailto:faye@xxxxxxxxxx]
>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 9:45 PM
> >To: Roy
Bynum
> >Cc: stds-802-3-efm
> >Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM -
Faye's seven points
> >
> >Roy,
> >
>
>Thank you for the clarification. Dedicated OAM
>
>channel does have the merit of pre-defined and
> >set-aside
bandwidth for mangement traffic. This
> >not only means
some sort of assurance that
> >OAM will get to the CPE but also
helps not
> >to step over to subscriber's bandwidth.
>
>
> >This is the mechanism I am most familiar with
>
>anyway. I am very open to other mechanism
> >that makes
sense for EFM.
> >
> >-faye
> >-----Original
Message-----
> >From: Roy Bynum
> >Sent: Tue 9/18/2001
7:30 PM
> >To: Faye Ly
> >Cc: stds-802-3-efm
>
>Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven points
> >
>
>Faye,
> >
> >Unless you get a bit error that
"garbages" an octet, once a message is
> >encoded and
transmitted, it does not get dropped while it is in the
>
>link. Full duplex does not even have to worry about
collisions. If
>the
> >OAM messaging is in an
"out-of-band" channel there is not even the
>conflict
> >of
competing with the data stream for insertion. There is no need
for
> >priority queuing of the OAM messages in that type of
PHY.
> >
> >At 04:54 PM 9/18/01 -0700, Faye Ly
wrote:
> > >Geoff,
> > >
> > >Some OAM
traffic is more critical than others. For example -
> >
>
> > >OAM command like 'reset' (in our case, reset CPE)
should not be
> > >retried. Certainly don't want to
reset the CPE a couple of times
> > >just because network is
slow. Giving up means sending a technician
> > >to the
field to actually toggle the power button on the CPE. This
>
> >is very expensive. The whole reason of requesting for a
dedicated
> > >OAM channel/IPG/whatever is to gurantee that no
acutal human
> > >needs to be sent to the field.
Maybe this is not do-able but we
> > >ought to try our
best.
> > >
> > >On a side note -
> >
>
> > >Can you please clarify the statement "P2P PHYs do
not drop packets"?
> > >This is good. I don't need to
keep all those dropped packets/bytes
> > >error counters
then. Thanks.
> > >
> > >-faye
> >
>
> > >
> >
> : Geoff
Thompson
> > >
Sent: Tue 9/18/2001 2:38 PM
> >
> To:
bob.barrett
> >
> Cc: Faye Ly; Geoff
Thompson; fkittred; stds-802-3-efm
> >
> Subject: RE: [EFM]
OAM - Faye's seven points
> > >
> > >
> >
> Bob-
> >
>
> > > At
11:25 AM 9/18/01 +0100, Bob Barrett wrote:
> > >
> >
>
> >
>
Faye,
> > >
> >
>
I think your re-stating these seven points is very
> >
>timely. If we were at a
> >
>
meeting I would suggest that we had a straw poll on
>each
>
> >of them. I would
> >
>
add an eighth i.e.
> > >
> >
>
8. What kind of OAM&P traffic requires guaranteed
> >
>delivery?
> > >
> > >
> >
> 1) We don't do "P".
We have already agreed that provisioning
>is
> >
>declared to be outside our scope
> >
> 2) There is no such
thing as guaranteed delivery
> >
> 3) P2P PHYs do not
drop packets
> >
> 4) Properly designed
CSMA/CD LANs do not lose packets. At
>worst
> > >they
try to send for awhile and if they don't get through they
give
>up.
> > >
> >
> Geoff
> >
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Short answer: All of it.
> > >
> >
>
Slight need for clarification: Bob Barrett (me) is
>an
> >
>equipment designer,
> >
>
not a service provider. I just happen to have been
> >
>designing and selling
> >
>
access equipment for the past ten years, rather than
> >
>enterprise equipment. I
> >
>
learnt about the OAM needs of my customers the hard
>way,
>
> >by building-in what
> >
>
I thought were reasonable OAM systems and then being
> >
>advised that I had not
> >
>
got it quite right (and they don't buy what is not
>quite
>
> >right).
> >
>
Nevertheless, I will answer the seven points as I
>see
> >
>them, see below,
> > >
> >
>
Bob Barrett
> > >
> >
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >
>
> From: Faye Ly
> > [<mailto:faye@xxxxxxxxxx>mailto:faye@xxxxxxxxxx]
> >
>
> Sent: 17 September 2001 18:32
> >
>
> To: bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Geoff Thompson;
> >
>fkittred@xxxxxxx
> >
>
> Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> >
>
> Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM developing Geoff's
>observation.
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> Bob,
> >
>
>
> >
>
> This largely depends on the requirements.
What
>kind
> > >of OAM&P traffic
> >
>
> requires
> >
>
> guaranteed delivery? And also what kind of
> >
>intelligence we require from
> >
>
> the
> >
>
> CPE and still maintain the low cost. If you
can
>tell
> > >me what is the
> >
>
> requirements
> >
>
> for each of the OAM&P traffic listed below:
(This
>is
> > >the minimum list
> >
>
> of
> >
>
> OAM&P traffic I can think of)
> >
>
>
> >
>
> 1. Reset command
> > >
> >
>
Mandatory
> > >
> >
>
> 2. Link failure/status
> > >
> >
>
Mandatory
> > >
> >
>
> 3. CPE registration or inventory (The former is
>the
>
> >action and the later
> >
>
> is
> >
>
> the results).
> > >
> >
>
Some form of registration, even if it is operator
>driven
>
> >is mandatory.
> >
>
Auto registration is desirable.
> > >
> >
>
> 4. Connectivity diagnose (ping etc) - This is
>divided
>
> >into link
> >
>
> connectivity which
> >
>
> can be covered by 2 and subscriber line
>connectivity.
>
> >
> >
>
Mandatory for the link, up to a point as close to
>the
> >
>subscriber interface
> >
>
as possible e.g. copper loop back on the connector
>side
>
> >of the IC, in the
> >
>
last output stage of the IC (most PHY ICs support
>this
> >
>already).
> > >
> >
>
Tests to the subscriber equipment are outside of the
> >
>scope of EFM, but in
> >
>
real terms the service provider will probably PING
> >
>something on the
> >
>
subscriber network, given access rights.
> > >
> >
>
> 5. Subscriber activation and deactivation (or
> >
>generally referred to as
> >
>
> provisioning)
> > >
> >
>
Mandatory - at the level of EFM this is probably no
>more
>
> >then turning a
> >
>
subscriber port on and off, and may be changing an
> >
>interface from 10M to
> >
>
100M to 1GE. Anything else is above the scope of EFM
>I
> >
>would think.
> > >
> >
>
> 6. CPE maintanence (upgrade, backup ...)
> > >
>
>
>
Desirable - possibly an area where EFM defines a
>cooms
> >
>channel but not the
> >
>
protocol or methodology that vendors implement over
>it
> >
>????
> > >
> >
>
> 7. Accounting information on the subscriber line -
> >
>optional since some
> >
>
> of
> >
>
> the accounting data is actually collected at the
> >
>aggregated box.
> > >
> >
>
I agree that this function is not required within
>the
> >
>CPE. However, RMON
> >
>
type stats might be useful within the CPE as history
>for
>
> >diagnostics, but
> >
>
not required as a source of relable data for billing
> >
>information. I think
> >
>
this will be a vendor specific thing. The existing
> >
>standards define what can
> >
>
be done. The vendors will choose what they
>implement.
> >
>The customers will
> >
>
choose equipment that has the right balance of
>features
>
> >and commercial terms
> >
>
for them.
> > >
> >
>
>
> >
>
> This will be really helpful for the vendors that
>are
>
> >building these
> >
>
> equipements
> >
>
> to justify for the need or the size of a dedicated
> >
>OAM&P channel.
> > >
> >
>
Sometimes as vendors we have to make inspired
>guesses
> >
>:-).
> > >
> >
>
On Sanjeev Mahalawat's point in an email to/from
>Faye -
>
> >I think it is highly
> >
>
desirable that some form of head-end proxy server is
> > >used
to translate the
> >
>
rather complex management requirements of the NOC
>NMS
> >
>systems into simpler
> >
>
commands for the EFM systems. And also take simple
>alarm
>
> >and status messages
> >
>
from EFM CPE and create SNMP traps and browser pages
>for
>
> >the human
> >
>
interface. Consolidating the 'presentation
>intelligence
>
> >and processing' in a
> >
>
head end proxy server shares the cost of the engine
> >
>across multiple CPE
> >
>
nodes. The CPE needs only a micro-controller (or
>less),
>
> >rather than an
> >
>
engine with a full IP stack. Low cost embedded JAVA
> >
>processors are coming,
> >
>
but they are taking their time :-).
> > >
> >
>
The EFM technical point is:
> > >
> >
>
'keep EFM OAM simple; vendors can implement the
>cleaver
>
> >stuff; economically
> >
>
this will probably at the head end; there is an
> >
>opportunity for silicon to
> >
>
do this at the CPE end, but that may take a while'.
> >
>
> >
>
Bob Barrett
> > >
> >
>
> -faye
> >
>
>
> >
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >
>
> From: Bob Barrett
> >
>[<mailto:bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>mailto:bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>
>
>
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 5:36 AM
> >
>
> To: Geoff Thompson; fkittred@xxxxxxx
> >
>
> Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> >
>
> Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM developing Geoff's
>observation.
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> I'm late in on this thread, so there may be a
>similar
>
> >comment further up
> >
>
> my
> >
>
> in-box from somebody else.
> >
>
>
> >
>
> Geoff's observation is pretty fundamental:
> >
>
>
> >
>
> > My expectation is that the demarcation
device
>will
> > >probably end
> >
>
> > up with an IP address in order to support:
> >
>
> > SNMP for
OA&M
> >
>
> > Firewall
services for the subscriber
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> > (That issue is, of course, beyond our scope)
> >
>
>
> >
>
> The logical conclusion of this observation is that
>EFM
>
> >should make the
> >
>
> OAM
> >
>
> at layer two as simplistic as possible fulfilling
>only
>
> >the basic
> >
>
> requirements i.e. limited number of managed
>objects
>
> >and limited echo (L2
> >
>
> ping) test. Vendors can then leverage ietf
>standards
>
> >(note: the users
> >
>
> tends
> >
>
> to like these) to implement ietf style 'standard'
> >
>management functions.
> >
>
> Isn't that what we all have in mind anyway :-).
> >
>
>
> >
>
> The open question then is will the service
>provider
>
> >market accept
> >
>
> in-band
> >
>
> management i.e. management IP frames mixed with
>user
>
> >traffic, or is
> >
>
> there a
> >
>
> real requirement for a side-band channel. If EFM
>does
>
> >need to include a
> >
>
> side
> >
>
> band channel then all that it needs to be is a
> >
>communications channel
> >
>
> (bit
> >
>
> stream), probably squeezed in the preamble or the
>IPG
>
> >(we can debate
> >
>
> that
> >
>
> choice for a while). Vendors can then implement
>either
>
> >a standards based
> >
>
> method of comms over that channel or do there own
> >
>thing. Personally I
> >
>
> would
> >
>
> expect vendors to choose something like IP over
>PPP
>
> >for this.
> >
>
>
> >
>
> I can wrap this all up in a presentation for the
>next
>
> >meeting if
> >
>
> required.
> >
>
>
> >
>
> (Just seen Geoff's comment on this in response to
> >
>Roy's thread; as a
> >
>
> vendor
> >
>
> we will probably want to support both in-band and
> >
>side-band,
> >
>
> standardised or
> >
>
> not, but we would prefer a standard for side band
>as
>
> >part of EFM).
> >
>
>
> >
>
> Bob Barrett
> >
>
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
>
> > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> >
>
> >
> >
>[<mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org>mailto:owner-stds-802-3
>-efm
>@majordomo.ieee.org]On
>
>
> >
> ><<mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org%5DOn>mailto:owner-stds
>-8
>
>
> 02-3-efm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%5DOn> Behalf Of Geoff
>
>
>
> > Thompson
> >
>
> > Sent: 04 September 2001 23:03
> >
>
> > To: fkittred@xxxxxxx
> >
>
> > Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> >
>
> > Subject: Re: [EFM] OAM loop back / echo server
> >
>function
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> > Fletcher-
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> > I don't think this is a stupid question.
> >
>
> > I don't think we need an IP level PING
> >
>
> > A L2 ping would do, perhaps even better,
the
>demarc
> > >would look for
> >
>
> PING
> >
>
> > type and then just swap SA & DA.
> >
>
> > My expectation is that the demarcation
device
>will
> > >need a MAC address
> >
>
> > My expectation is that the demarcation
device
>will
> > >probably end
> >
>
> > up with an
> >
>
> > IP address in order to support:
> >
>
> > SNMP for
OA&M
> >
>
> > Firewall
services for the subscriber
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> > (That issue is, of course, beyond our scope)
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> > Geoff
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> > At 03:47 PM 9/4/01 -0400, Fletcher E Kittredge
> >
>wrote:
> >
>
> > >On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:11:54 -0700 "Geoff
> >
>Thompson" wrote:
> >
>
> > > > As I have said before, I do believe that
we
>will
> > >need a
> >
>
> > demarcation device
> >
>
> > > > that has the capability to host
OA&M
>functions.
> >
>
> > > > We have talked about "loop back" from
this
>point
> > >in the network.
> >
>
> > > > Let us forevermore make that "PING"
> >
>
> > >
> >
>
> > >Geoff;
> >
>
> > >
> >
>
> > > Apologies
if this is a stupid
>question,
> > >but does PING
in
> >
>
> this
> >
>
> > >context mean the utility that sends an IP
ICMP
>ECHO
> > >REQUEST packet
> >
>
> and
> >
>
> > >listens for an ECHO REPLY packet? If so, am I
>
> >correct in thinking
> >
>
> this
> >
>
> > >means the demarcation device would require
an
>IP
> > >address?
> >
>
> > >
> >
>
> > >thanks!
> >
>
> > >fletcher
> >
>
> >
> >
>
>
|