RE: Ethernet over WANs
There may be a set of reserved bits for OAM&P, but currently all of the
OAM&P systems offered by vendors are proprietary and not interoperable.
However, I understand the ITU is working on developing an interoperable
standard. How long that will take to percolate through the market is
Native GbE is being considered for a number of reasons - low cost,
familiarity to LAN network administrators, etc. There are a number of
number of different ways OAM&P can be implemented with native GbE. I
suspect you will see some announcements in the next couple of months from a
number of vendors.
OAM&P on native GbE is of big interest to us. We have a 700km CWDM- 4xGbE
trial just getting underway and 1500km combined 4xGbE over SONET and 4xGbE
over transparent WDM about to start in Newfoundland. We will be reporting
on the initial results of these trials at NANOG in October.
You will be surprised to know that the configuration that concerns us the
most is the GbE over SONET in terms of network management and OAM&P.
Although the transparent DWDM and the native GbE also have challenges in
this area, they are within our management domain. The GbE over SONET is a
carrier "managed service". This means the carrier offers virtual GbE
connections over a "GbE cloud" and keeps all the operations and control
hidden from the user e.g buffering, flow control, etc etc . This gives us
the willies because it sounds like the old "ATM cloud" service offerings
where we had so many problems with IP interacting with the ATM network over
which we had no control.
I still believe that all 3 variations of 10GbE will exist in the marketplace
serving different needs and requirements
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mittalr@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mittalr@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Rohit
> Sent: August 4, 1999 6:10 PM
> To: Bill.St.Arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Ethernet over WANs
> Now I'm confused. Isn't the OAM standard for SONET. I'm talking
> about the bits
> in the section and line overhead ie D1..D12. So then why is 3. being even
> considered. Will we save any overhead by a new OAM protocol - I think not.
> Rohit Mittal
> Engineering, Microlinear Corp.
> > Rohit:
> > I think you will see 3 different approaches in the marketplace for
> > delivering 10GbE over the WAN:
> > 1. 10GbE over SONET where a proprietary OAM is done at SONET layer
> > 2. 10Gbe over wavelengths where a proprietary OAM is done out
> of band in the
> > optical channel
> > 3. Native 10Gbe which would require some sort of new OAM protocol
> > The question that has been asked as since no common standard has been
> > developed for OAM in SONET, is a "standard" OAM required for
> native 10GbE?
> > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I recently subscribed to this list and was going through the archives
> > >
> > > Some people have mentioned about sending ethernet over MAN/WAN links.
> > > The question I have is Ethernet doesn't have OAM features of SONET.
> > > That is a critical feature for WANs (and not LANs)
> > > How is that handled for 10GbE? Can you make intellegent enough DWDM
> > > elements to handle that. Doesn't that by itself add overhead which is
> > > comparable to SONET overhead. If so, then why is there so much
> > > discussion
> > > as to replace SONET by 10GbE.
> > >
> > > In packet over SONET, we use PPP which adds very little
> > > overhead. Can't we use the same format for 10GbE over SONET. In that
> > > case we can define the 10GbE standard without worrying about SONET .
> > > Just my 2c.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Rohit Mittal
> > > ~
> > >