RE: [EFM] Re: OAM - To side-band or not to side-band
Andrew,
I apologize. I did not intend to "lecture" the chair of 802.1. I was
under the mistaken impression that you were wanting to find out what kind
of products, as I understand them, I would be willing to buy, as
representing one of the major players in the service provider industry. I
was simply trying to explain what, as it was explained to me by others, I
was referring to as a "regenerator/repeater" that would be required to
support a major segment of my market.
I am sorry that I had the wrong impression,
Roy Bynum
At 05:52 PM 9/26/01 -0700, Andrew Smith wrote:
>Roy,
>
>Sorry, I'm trying to stay quiet on this thread but, obviously, am not
>succeeding. I don't mean to sound rude but, if you're going to lecture the
>chair of 802.1, you ought to get your 802.1 terminology (and facts maybe?)
>right first. I'd suggest you read some of the 802.1 documents (start perhaps
>with the "IEEE 802 overview and architecture" standard) and try explaining
>your point of view about what is and is not a "bridge" or "repeater" in that
>language.
>
>When you write "can not get access" I think perhaps you are describing a
>particular product implementation as opposed to the entity defined by the
>standards: it is perfectly allowed by IEEE 802 standards to place "end
>station" functionality into the same sheet metal enclosure as any other type
>of standard entity (802 standards do not, as far as I know, make any
>statements at all about this). Whether or not products implement such an
>"end station" function is purely a product/market decision, it is not a
>valid technical argument for or against particular management channels in a
>standard.
>
>Andrew Smith
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roy Bynum
>Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 3:37 PM
>To: Tony Jeffree; geoff Thompson
>Cc: stds-802-3-efm
>Subject: [EFM] Re: OAM - To side-band or not to side-band
>
>
>
>Tony,
>
>Again, I think you may not be understanding what I am talking about.
>
>Actually, according to Geoff Thompson, there is no such thing as a "full
>duplex repeater". A hub is not a repeater, it is a half duplex bridge. A
>switch is a full duplex "bridge". Both have 802.1 functionality.
>
>What I am referring does not have any 802.1 or 802.2 functionality. It has
>no visibility into the revenue data traffic stream. It can not get access
>to the revenue traffic data stream to put upper level application
>management traffic such as SNMP into the revenue traffic data stream in
>either direction.
>
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>
>
>
>At 07:47 PM 9/26/01 +0100, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> >Roy -
> >
> >Managed Ethernet repeaters (more commonly known as hubs these days) have
> >been around for some while, and they use MAC frames to carry their (SNMP)
> >management exchanges. I would therefore hesitate to use that particular
> >argument either for or against the use of a side-band for OAM.
> >
> >Having said that, in networks with repeaters there may be distinct
> >advantages in *not* using such a side-band for OAM - for example, where it
> >is the device the other side of the repeater that you want to manage.
> >Unless, of course, you start putting some form of addressing into this
> >PHY-based side channel, which rapidly starts to look like you're
> >replicating MAC functionality in the PHY, which begins to look like a
> >waste of time & effort.
> >
> >As to T1 and T3, there's no doubt that some of the EFM participants
> >(myself for one) are not intimately acquainted with the management
> >entrails of these technologies, and with the thinking behind why they are
> >that way. I'm sure that some of that information may be useful in
> >informing what we do in EFM. However, I'm equally sure that re-inventing
> >T1 or T3, giving it a bit-rate that is a power of 10, & then badging it
> >"Ethernet", would be a total waste of our time. After all, if you
> >continue to do what you have always done, you inevitably end up with what
> >you have always had.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >
> >At 11:31 26/09/2001 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:
> >>There are a lot of other reasons to have the OAM ou-of-band to the MAC
> >>traffic, such as being able to support OAM on an intelligent
> >>"transparent" full duplex repeater in the future. When this group took
> >>on the task of adding subscription network support for edge access
> >>infrastructure into Ethernet, they took on applying most all of the
> >>functionality that is being used today. There is a long history of why
> >>the functionality for these types of services is what it is. How many of
> >>the EFM Task Force people have looked at how the OAM overhead of T1 or T3
> >>framing works today? How many of the EFM Task Force people have looked
> >>into why the OAM overhead of T1 or T3 framing works the way that it does?
> >