RE: [EFM] Re: OAM - To side-band or not to side-band
Ops, did I open a can of worms here, sorry Matt.
What I meant was that the OAM transport should work under boundary
conditions, which kind of maps to your Webster definition. The delta 'T' in
this context is clearly set by the user interface requirements of an NMS. I
don't think we will be relying on OAM message for rapid restoration. The OAM
messages need to be delivered in a timely fashion under all network
conditions, which I would define as a non-perceptible delay to human
operator when remote access over EFM OAM is compared to access to a locally
attached head-end unit.
Thanks
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: msquire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:msquire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Matt Squire
Sent: 27 January 2002 18:12
To: Roy Bynum
Cc: Bob Barrett; Geoff Thompson; Tony Jeffree; stds-802-3-efm
Subject: Re: [EFM] Re: OAM - To side-band or not to side-band
According to Webster, deterministic comes from determine which means 'to
fix the boundaries.' Hence, setting a minimum and maximum is quite
deterministic.
Nothing we could do would operate on 'any specific granular time frame',
for a time frame can always be chosen which is less than 1-bit time. I
know you have time frames you find desirable - other folk have other
views on desirable time frames. Time frame granularity is certinly one
of the differentiators between the OAM transport proposals and should be
considered by folks when making their evaulations of the transport
proposals.
I'm completely unclear on what we approach 802.3ah OAM will not be
taking.
Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> The moment that you say minimum and maximums, you have said that it is not
> deterministic from the service provider viewpoint for any kind of service
> than "Internet" related. Deterministic means that at any specific
> granular time frame, a specific level of performance monitoring is
> available. On today's infrastructure, where it is managed at all, that
> time frame is measured in microseconds. Where infrastructure is not
> managed, the facility is managed through the services using SNMP embedded
> in the customer revenue stream. Sometimes ATM is used to create an
> dedicated channel at L2 for the SNMP, but it is still embedded as part of
> the service revenue stream. I think that we have agreed that the 802.3ah
> OAM will not be taking that approach.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> At 12:09 PM 1/27/2002 -0500, Matt Squire wrote:
>
> >All of the OAM transport proposals are completely contained within 802.3
> >and do not rely on implementation specifics. Also, all of the transport
> >proposals have easily derivable deterministic minimum and maximum
> >performance (bps).
> >
> >Bob Barrett wrote:
> > >
> > > Gentlemen
> > >
> > > I would assert that anything we define for OAM transport should also
be
> > self
> > > contained within 802.3 and not rely on implementation specifics in
order to
> > > work deterministically.
> > >
> > > Non-deterministic management transport will not meet the broad market
> > > acceptance criterion imho.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >