RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
At 07:57 PM 2/24/2003 -0800, Booth, Bradley wrote:
Valid points. Some may
argue that EFM OAM didn't exist when 1000BASE-T or 1000BASE-X were
written, but that has not prevented EFM OAM from having some affect on
1000BASE-X. When 802.3ae was starting, 802.3ad (Link Aggregation)
had not yet completed, but there was a decision to support Link Agg in
I disagree. I don't think it was "a decision", rather it was
(1) a non-issue because of our careful adherence to layering and (2) a
default because each of our projects is assumed to be a
supplement/amendment to the entire standard that has gone (or is going)
10GBASE-T Study Group will have to make decisions about what portions of
802.3, 802.3ae, 802.3af and 802.3ah that we feel we should support or at
least consider supporting moving forward. For example, do we use
Clause 22 management or Clause 45 management? If we use Clause 45
but wish to support auto-negotiation to lower speeds, then we may need to
consider supporting Clause 22 access to Clause 45 registers. 802.3
is a living document, so we need to be careful about what parts we do and
do not want to consider in our effort.
I consider this issue to just be more grist for the contention that the
destruction of 802.3 layering by P802.3ah is appropriate justification
for moving 802.3ah out of 802.3.
As the Chair, I want to make
sure we consider all aspects of creating a standard, from the technical
feasibility up to the management requirements. All opinions are
valid, and open discussion is a great way that we make sure we haven't
left stones unturned.
Brad, if this isn't an invitation to get one into trouble, I don't
know what is. In any case, my input would be that we need OAM no
more than 1000BASE-T does, so I'd favor leaving out of the scope of the
10GBASE-T PHY. If someone wants to implement some level of OAM in a
derivative PHY device or use MAC level OAM functions they're free to do
Also, from my limited understanding of 802.3ah, OAM for the PHY layer
is TBD, so I don't think we can consider the work being done in EFM as
useful precedence at this point.
From: Booth, Bradley
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:00 PM
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Ahmet Tuncay
- Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:28 PM
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
Would you like to make a presentation to that effect? :-)
I see the Study Group as having three options related to OAM in our
1) state compliance with EFM OAM (and therefore possibly use it in
2) state that EFM OAM is beyond the scope of 10GBASE-T, excluding it
from use within our effort
3) say nothing, and leave the use of EFM OAM capabilities up to those
implementing the systems
Which of the three options would you prefer?
Would anyone else like to state a preferred option?
From: Geoff Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 8:23 PM
To: Booth, Bradley
Subject: Re: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
I would say that since...
same entity is likely to own both ends of the link
ends of the link are expected to be in the same building.
ends of the link are likely to be in the same room
that there is no need for management beyond that required for
existing enterprise links.
At 08:32 PM 2/18/2003 -0800, 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.
Chair, 10GBASE-T Study Group