Re: [EFM] RE: OAM Proposals - a ping by any other name
Geoff,
Actually, service providers today pull management information out of
"overhead" and not frame information. The OAMinP portion of the OAM
Baseline proposals go one better by providing SONET equivalent
management
information from an Ethernet stream without the overhead expense. Frame
information
must be routed to the user or management entity. OAMinP information
always goes directly to the management entity.
Best Regards,
Rich
Geoff Thompson wrote:
>
> Roy-
>
> At 10:12 AM 4/22/02 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> >Martin,
> >
> >For packet services such as Ethernet VPN, OAMiP is useful to provide
> >"Section" equivalent level autonomous fault bit alarms, or a very low
> >level maintenance function such as turning on or off "Section" equivalent
> >level loop back functions. This is the reason that I supported a
> >simplified version of OAMiP as being optional for EFM.
> >
> >For Private Line services OAMiP is useless.
>
> I do not believe that this is true.
>
> This assumes that the provide wants to keep a sophisticated customer
> completely segregated from OAM. In fact this is not the case, especially
> over long term trends. As carriers get squeezed for revenue they will
> depend more and more for input from their customers. Customer's facilities
> will span several supplier's environments. They are gonna have to be able
> to participate. I believe that putting the relevant data within frames is
> the only viable way to allow that to happen.
>
> >Thank you,
> >Roy Bynum
>
> Geoff