Re: [EFM] [EFM-OAM] OAM Transport Proposal
Roy,
Please elucidate your claim below. It makes absolutely sense to me so
I'll have to discard it as baseless.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> Sergiu,
>
> The use of OAMiF as a transport for an EOC per ITU-T standards will provide
> support intermediate optical converters even better than OAMiP can. Please
> take a look at the ITU xDSL standards files on the EFM web site.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> At 04:33 PM 4/23/2002 -0700, Sergiu Rotenstein wrote:
>
> >All,
> >
> >I am sorry I am responding so late. I assume from the exchange of e-mails up
> >to this date
> >that my oppinions will be in minority.
> >
> >What I do not see in this proposal is the compromise.
> >The main idea of the Suzuki preamble proposal was the support for non-MAC
> >based
> >optical ethernet termination units - sometimes called converters. These
> >units
> >are the most inexpensive form of deploying Ethernet based FTTH or Optical
> >Ethernet.
> >The intention of the preamble proposal was to support the link management
> >for these
> >type of units. These are widely deployed worldwide, and especially in Japan.
> >And also
> >this type of basic optical ethernet termination makes sense as a starting
> >deployment
> >point.
> >
> >As I see in slide 5, in order to determine the capabilities of each end unit
> >a frame
> >exchange needs to take place. If the CPE side is a converter, that normally
> >does not
> >have frame/MAC support, than there is no link management.
> >
> >I assume that this is what the customers - the service providers - had in
> >mind.
> >
> >This is the essence of the proposal. The rest can be agreed through enough
> >work and
> >intelligence. But, by eliminating the basic idea of the Suzuki preamble
> >proposal,
> >we also eliminated the basic link management capabilities of a simple non
> >MAC type
> >Optical Ethernet Termination... To correct this, we can add a simple
> >auto-sense capability
> >based on preamble information transmission that will affect the link only
> >when the
> >link goes from down to up.
> >
> >Too bad that this is not on the agenda...
> >
> >Sergiu Rotenstein
> >
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Kevin Daines [mailto:Kevin.Daines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > >>Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 2:01 PM
> > >>To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > >>Subject: [EFM] [EFM-OAM] OAM Transport Proposal
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>All,
> > >>
> > >>A number of individuals have worked since the St. Louis
> > >>Meeting in March on a compromise OAM Transport proposal. We
> > >>are posting the proposal for review/comment from the larger
> > >>802.3ah Task Force.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Kevin Daines
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> >The information contained in this electronic mail is privileged and
> >confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
> >above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
> >hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
> >communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in
> >error, please immediately notify Disclaimer@xxxxxxxxxx Thank you.
--
Best Regards,
Rich
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Taborek Sr. Intel Corporation
XAUI Sherpa Intel Communications Group
3101 Jay Street, Suite 110 Optical Strategic Marketing
Santa Clara, CA 95054 Santa Clara Design Center
408-496-3423 JAY1-101
Cell: 408-832-3957 mailto:rich.taborek@xxxxxxxxx
Fax: 408-486-9783 http://www.intel.com