RE: [EFM] Re: OAM - To side-band or not to side-band
Gee
I thought it was one of those German scientists (Heisenberg or was it
Schroedinger?) who was the authority, not Websters.
Bruce
At 03:57 PM 1/27/2002 -0800, Meir Bartur wrote:
>See attached for deterministic reply.
>
>Meir
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 3:07 PM
>To: mattsquire@xxxxxxx
>Cc: Bob Barrett; Geoff Thompson; Tony Jeffree; stds-802-3-efm
>Subject: Re: [EFM] Re: OAM - To side-band or not to side-band
>
>
>
>Matt,
>
>When we were working on 10GbE, the issue of definition of
>"deterministic"
>came up. I could not find it in any dictionary, including an unabridged
>
>Webster. I did find a definition of "deterministic at
>http://hissa.nist.gov/dads/HTML/deterministc.html. I also found a
>definition of "non-deterministic" at
>http://hissa.nist.gov/dads/HTML/nondeterministic.html. The difference
>between the two definitions that can be related to this discussion is
>whether there is single predetermined or multiple non-predetermined
>delays
>that can be returned. From your comment about a fixing a minimum and
>maximum , which indicates that at any one instant there are multiple
>non-predetermine delays that can be returned, is actually
>non-deterministic.
>
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>
>
>At 01:12 PM 1/27/2002 -0500, Matt Squire wrote:
>
> >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
> > > > >
>