Re: [EFM] RE: OAM Proposals - a ping by any other name

[Geoff Thompson <gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roy-

You point is well taken about every MAC chip (or equivalent) in every piece 
of test equipment requiring replacement.

However, I don't think that was Dan's point. I don't think he was talking 
about test equipment. He seemed to be talking about imbedded SNMP 
management. Same problem.

Geoff

At 09:11 AM 4/22/02 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:

>Dan,
>
>I agree with you.  Preamble as it is may require a new chip set for all 
>the test equipment.  A baseline including the "null" frame of a preamble 
>without an Ethernet MAC frame will require the replacement of every piece 
>of Ethernet test equipment that every enterprise and service provider 
>currently has.  I am not sure that the industry can support that right now.
>
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>
>
>At 01:10 PM 4/22/2002 +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> >
>> > A system will send an OAMinP preamble approximately once
>> > every 125u seconds,
>> > either by substitution on the next available frame, or by
>> > sending a null
>> > frame. The null frame to be of current min size PDU, or
>> > shorter, if EFM
>> > defines such a new PDU for null frame.
>> >
>>I might have missed some previous discussions, but why should EFM define 
>>a PDU null frame of a size shorter than the current min size PDU. This 
>>would break all existing performance monitoring tools, and require a 
>>re-shuffle of the size distribution counters in the existing standard 
>>Ethernet and RMON MIBs.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Dan