RE: [EFM] Re: OAM Transport Proposal
The repeaters in the 802.3 spec are half-duplex, so (1).
- Matt
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Nuss [mailto:nuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 7:40 AM
>To: mattsquire@acm.org; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
>sergiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [EFM] Re: OAM Transport Proposal
>
>
>
>Matt,
>
>Which of these are covered by clause 41?
>
>Martin
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Squire [mailto:mattsquire@xxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 5:54 PM
>To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; sergiu@nbase-xyplex.com
>Subject: RE: [EFM] Re: OAM Transport Proposal
>
>
>
>
>We've had many threads on repeaters, media converters,
>regenerators, and
>the like throughout the evolution of this work. The following are my
>recollections as reported by others (Geoff, Tony, etc.). Pls correct
>anything I misrepresent.
>
>1) 802.3 defines half-duplex repeaters.
>2) 802.3 does not define full-duplex repeaters.
>3) What some people commonly refer to as full duplex repeaters are
>actually 2-port MAC frame forwarders (802.1D relays?).
>4) 802.3 does not define optical regenerators (ie protocol agnostic
>signal regeneration).
>5) 802.3 does not define media converters.
>
>Since using the preamble to carry signaling is intended as a
>full-duplex
>function only, I short-cut to the conclusion that preamble has no
>applicability to any repeater, regenerator, or media converter as
>defined by 802.3. Before we could figure out how to address this
>full-duplex repeater function that does not exist in 802.3, it would
>have to be properly defined. Thats all I was getting at.
>
>People are concerned, people are thinking about it, but it has been
>difficult to address because of the terminology confusion and our
>scope.
>
>- Matt