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



With all due respect, it seems like we are going about this backward.  If 10GbE OAM is valuable, why isn't it being done within 802.3ah by the OAM subtaskforce?  

1.  Such work would be within the P802.3ah PAR scope.  

2.  P802.3ah won't progress to WG ballot for at least two plenary meetings.  If it is more complex than that, throwing it on top of 10GBASE-T would certainly be the wrong place to do the service to humanity.

3.  If a consistent OAM mechanism is desirable over all speeds of operation, then it will be better reviewed for consistency if all speeds of operation are specified at the same time.

4.  The 10GbE fiber PHYs are already standard, the earlier a functionality is defined, the more likely it is to appear in supporting silicon.

5.  Why wait 2-3 years for 10GBASE-T to define something that would only be within their scope if the scope was intentionally warped to include OAM for all 10GbE PHYs.  Judging from the 10GBASE-CX4 Working Paper, 

6.  Immediate definition of the OAM hooks for 10GBASE-LX4 would allow 10GBASE-CX4 to include the same counters in their initial standard.  Right now is the time to add the necessary counters to 10GBASE-CX4, not in 2-3 years, since the -CX4 people plan to request WG ballot in March.  In other words, someone should be requesting time of Dan Dove for a March OAM presentation at which they would propose the PHY layer capabilities required for OAM support of a 10GBASE-X4 PHY.

My conclusion is that 10GBASE-T should not be doing this service to humanity.  The place for the work is the OAM subtaskforce of 802.3ah, and those that care about OAM for 10GbE need to move very quickly to see that necessary hooks are included within 10GBASE-CX4.

--Bob Grow


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Thatcher []
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:28 AM
To: Shimon Muller;
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...

Because, Shimon, you know as well as any that the symbol error counters do not exist two layers above the PHY. 

Also, just as with clause 24 and 36, 10 Gig needs to have the unidirectional aspects clarified during operation with OAM.

Besides, if there is anyone that understands the concept of "benefit to humanity," we have ample evidence that you do.  ;-) 

As 10 Gig passes the baton to 10GBASE-T, I beseech you guys to "do the right thing." 


-----Original Message-----
From: Shimon Muller [mailto:Shimon.Muller@Sun.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:47 AM
To:;; Jonathan Thatcher
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...

> OAM is implemented as a sublayer above the MAC, using frames. So,
> exactly what would be the trouble? Passing frames?

10GBASE-T is a PHY project. So why are we arguing about support or
non-support of functionality that is two layers above it?

I don't believe there is any need for an objective with regard to
OAM in 10GBASE-T. It's a non-issue.