RE: [EFM] RE: OAM functionals
Roy,
I am trying to make a slightly different point, or ask a different
question. I am actually with you on the issue of insertion of control
plane messages in the traffic stream, but...
>
> To a certain extent, you are right. In some ways you are wrong.
>
> Upper layer applications can provide a very rich texture of
> management and
> provisioning messaging. The question would be whether this
> messaging would
> require insertion into the customer revenue traffic stream.
> This works for
> low margin services such as the Internet. It does not work
> for high margin
> services such as "Private Line".
>
> There are a lot of vendors that are trying to redefine
> "Private Line". The
> sad truth is that it is the customer of the service providers
> that define
> what "Private Line" is. At present, and in the foreseeable future,
> "Private Line" is a private, secure, fixed bandwidth
> facility, that is not
> shared with other "customers". "Private Line" has the
> service provider
> management out side of the customer's revenue traffic.
>
>
Note that you did not use the word Ethernet even once!
My point is that the chassis management issues need to be part of a
layer of management that is not Ethernet (or other data layer) specific.
What needs to be defined is the information model for a control plane
(which is not lower layer specific) and than mappings to the specific
layers. I sympathize with the need and I understand the requirement, but
I am not sure that the first part is within our charter. Maybe there are
other standard groups dealing with this. I am not sure that this group
is well prepared to deal with chassis management or facilities alarms,
and I am wondering if you as a service provider would not prefer one
single interface to present such information, for all the data layer
technologies that run the services that you sell.
It might be that
Regards,
Dan