RE: [EFM] Finally There
Francois, Seto-san,
Thanks your comments. Some comments are below.
At 17:34 02/03/11 -0500, Francois D. Menard wrote:
>After reading Fujimodo-San's recap on the benefits of Preamble OAM, I am
>left at a loss understanding why this should be an "either or"
>situation. In my view there are benefits that Frame OAM can benefit
>that Preamble OAM cannot easily support with existing equipments, namely
>the relay of management information across an open access point of
>interconnection that is strictly Ethernet compliant.
>The frame-based OAM would allow in addition to relay OAM information
>generated by Ethernet appliances at the customer premises across the EFM
>access network and across the Open Access POI, to various service
>providers.
At the POI, I recognize that we need the health check each other SW. However,
I don't like to relay OAM info which is generated by CPE to the other. If
you allow
to relay, does it mean frame-OAM propagate beyond Bridge? If so you can access
our facility freely and we cannot accept this lack of security.
>Good point. I could agree with you if Preamble OAM did not
>require amendments to existing 1000BASE-X PCS implementation.
>If we adopt preamble OAM, all the existing 1000BASE-X MAC/PCS
>(usually they are one) will be incompatible with IEEE802.3.
>(See p.20 on suzuki_2_0302.pdf.)
I'm not interested in preserving our old Ethernet SWs. The number is quite
limited.
However, I'm quite interested in preserve our service level which is provided
by SONET/SDH that may be replaced by economical Ethernet technologies.