RE: [EFM] RE: OAM Transport Proposal
Rich,
Something like that. If a service interface is required for OAMinF, then it
should be clearly stated and specified in the baseline proposal. The same
would apply for OAMinP. My concern with OAMinP is where it resides and what
level of changes to 802.3 are required.
Thanks,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 7:38 PM
Cc: 'stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org'
Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: OAM Transport Proposal
Brad,
I agree that a service interface is probably required for
fault and
alarm conditions. This is covered under the following EFM
objectives:
Support far-end OAM for subscriber access networks:
o Remote Failure Indication
o Link Monitoring
This objective, and the service interface is applicable to
OAM in
general and not specific to the transport (i.e. preamble or
frame).
I take it that you're requesting that this be clearly
specified in the
OAM Baseline for Edinburgh?
Best Regards,
Rich
--
"Booth, Bradley" wrote:
>
> Rich,
>
> This is the sticking point. 802.3 specifies service
interfaces and a PHY
> management interface. To assume that EFM is going to do
any management of
> the link without using either of these interfaces implies
that the OAM must
> be handled inside the PHY. If OAMinP is not handling its
OAM messages
> either in the PHY or via a service interface or PHY
management interface,
> then I think this is "broken" within the context of
Ethernet.
>
> Cheers,
> Brad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:29 PM
> Cc: 'stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org'
> Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: OAM Transport Proposal
>
> Brad,
>
> The simple Fault and Alarm conditions that are
expeditiously transported
> via OAMinP should not utilize the relatively slow MDIO/MDC
mechanisms.
> The management entity for OAMinP is not significantly
different than
> that which carriers are used to for SONET OAM for handling
the same
> conditions. I believe that the specific management
interface is out of
> IEEE P802.3ah scope.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rich
>
> --
>
> "Booth, Bradley" wrote:
> >
> > Matt,
> >
> > A management frame I described is that defined in Clause
22 as a MDIO/MDC
> > communication. If the preamble is filtered by the PHY,
then there has to
> be
> > some way to pass this preamble OAM information to the
management entity.
> In
> > 802.3, this is done via MDIO/MDC (or management frames).
A management
> frame
> > takes over 25 us to be passed across the MDIO/MDC
interface. Unless the
> > intention is to have the PHY handle all OAM in preamble
without management
> > entity intervention, then the response to the OAM in
preamble will be
> > hampered by the MDIO/MDC interface.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Brad
---------------------------------------------------------
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