Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index



Regarding 802.3ae local/remote fault in the RS vs 802.3ah local/remote fault in OAM: it is true that the scope of OAM has been limited within EFM to 100 M and 1 G. I believe that it would be a small issue to make the necessary changes to 10 G (just like small changes are being made to clauses 24 and 36) to support this. To do so would require a project with a 10 Gig scope.

We can certainly consider the inclusion of OAM into 10 Gig (perhaps, more especially for the fiber versions) a "benefit to humanity." It would be wonderful if 10GBASE-T could do this so that we don't have to create a project for this singular purpose. I am confident that the OAM and 10Gig RS experts would be more than willing to help out with this.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Noseworthy []
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:57 PM
To: Jonathan Thatcher; Geoff Thompson; Val Oliva
Cc:; Booth, Bradley
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...

An observation.  OAM would prove useful in many circumstances outside of
EFM.  (amongst many benefits, link BER estimation using frame transmission
becomes trivial if OAM loopback is employed)

As Jonathan and Val point out, OAM serves a purpose which 10GBASE-T may want
to directly address (rather than indirectly through allowing 'optional'
usages etc)

The observation is this however - 10GE (.3ae) may support OAM, however due
to the local/remote fault functionality of the RS, in the presence of a
unidirectional link, OAM PDUs will not flow - this may not be a problem
(fault may be substantially faster than OAM for problem alerting), but it
does violate Val's comment about a "consistent" means by which Ethernet uses
OAM  (all other .3's would use unidirectional OAM, while 10GE devices use
fault in the RS)

   will 10GBASE-T follow 802.3ae and use local/remote fault (and perhaps OAM
in addition)?
   follow 802.3ah and use OAM PDUs to indicate issues, even in the presence
of a unidirectional link?

Perhaps too early to ask this question......

        Bob Noseworthy
        (603) 862-4342   -
        10 Gigabit Ethernet Consortium Manager
        InterOperability Lab
        University of New Hampshire - Research Computing Center

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of Jonathan
> Thatcher
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:11 PM
> To: Geoff Thompson; Val Oliva
> Cc:; Booth, Bradley
> Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
> Geoff,
> Boy, I sure don't get "No, Brad should not worry about OAM in his
> project" from Val's note.
> You say (about what Val said?): "...there is significant need for
> OAM that is consistent across 802.3."
> Val said: " OAM is critical for Ethernet, whether it's in [list
> of port types]...."
> I agree with both of these.
> OAM is designed to be independent of port type. Yes, 10GBASE-T
> should support OAM. It will have to go out of its way not to.
> But, there are certain requirements if it is going to support all
> the features.
> Kevin Daines is presenting an OAM tutorial on Monday night to the
> 802.1 & link security folk. This might be a good thing for the
> 10GBASE-T folk to attend.
> jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Thompson []
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:19 PM
> To: Val Oliva
> Cc:; Booth, Bradley
> Subject: Re: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
> Val-
> What you are asking for is different than the question Brad asked.
> What I gather from what you said is:
>          No, Brad should not worry about OAM in his project
>          But, there is a significant need for OAM that is
> consistent across
> 802.3.
> Are you volunteering yourself for a new project?
> Geoff
> At 09:48 PM 2/18/2003 -0800, Val Oliva wrote:
> >OAM is critical for Ethernet, whether it's in 802.3af,
> >EFMA, or even 10GbE. It's important that all of these
> >dot3s have OAM and are consistent.
> >
> >Val Oliva
> >
> >On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 08:32  PM, Booth, Bradley wrote:
> >
> >>Study group members,
> >>
> >>As some of you may know, EFM (Ethernet in the First Mile or 802.3ah) has
> >>added Operation, Administration and Management (OAM) capabilities to
> >>their specification.  Like 802.3af DTE power, the study group needs to
> >>decide whether or not compliance with 802.3ah is within the scope of our
> >>effort, and most specifically the OAM capabilities.  This relates to
> >>compatability with our existing standards.  If there is anyone
> that would
> >>like to make presentations for or against compliance with 802.3ah or
> >>802.3ah OAM, please let me know.
> >>
> >>Thank you,
> >>Brad
> >>
> >>Chair, 10GBASE-T Study Group
> >>