RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
decision I was referring to was the objective: "Support proposed standard
P802.3ad (Link Aggregation)". I believe it was a given that P802.3ae would
support P802.3ad, but the group did specifically call it
Although the 10GBASE-T Study Group is focused on the
PHY layer, we need to also consider the upper layers and the efforts of other
task forces. There are possible implications to the design of the PHY
layer depending on the support required for things like OAM and DTE
power. In my humble opinion, the study group needs to consider these
things when looking at the technical feasibility and economic feasibility of
At 07:57 PM 2/24/2003 -0800, Booth,
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 802.3ae.
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) before.
The 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
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.
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
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
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 [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:00 PM
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Ahmet Tuncay [mailto:email@example.com]
- Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:28 PM
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- 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 [mailto:email@example.com]
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