RE: [EFM] OAM - Tony's points
Andrew,
Agreed - if the spin-off from solving the technical argument also addresses
the marketing argument then we are all happy :-).
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Smith [mailto:ah_smith@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 26 September 2001 21:56
> To: bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: stds-802-3-efm
> Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM - Tony's points
>
>
> Bob,
>
> You wrote:
> > Service providers have a desire to offer a full 1GE service and not use
> any
> > of it's bandwidth for OAM. The rule of conservation of
> bandwidth means the
> > OAM needs to go somewhere other then in the bandwidth reserved
> for the 1GE
> > payload. I take it as read that 100% utilisation of a 1GE is
> unlikely, but
> > that is not the point. The point is that service providers want to offer
> 1GE
> > service period, not a 999.9Mbit service.
>
> That would be a marketing argument.
>
> > Service providers are not happy with even the smallest risk
> that customer
> > data will block or corrupt the OAM channel.
>
> That would be a technical argument.
>
> It's important for this group to be able to tell the difference.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrew Smith
>
>