Re: Deconstructing OAM&P
Roy,
Some confusion to me.
If the 10GbE frames are to ride on SONET (OC-192), why should 10GbE should worry
about path OAM&P, let alone line- and section-ones? SONET's inherent path OAM&P
will do the job anyway, doesn't it? Or is it that path OAM&P are left vacant rather
to be specified by the end-to-end path users? Ethernet will do its own end-to-end
monitor/control independently of SONET OAM&P which is transparent to 10GbE.
The case of 10GbE OAM&P emulating those of SONET will be of more concern when we
are to, later on, pump 10GbE frames directly into WDM dark fibers(correct term?).
Think of IP over WDM (IPoW) wherein Ethernet framing might be used, eliminating the
whole SONET infrastructure. (Refer to CANARIE-III for more detail.) If the optical
distance between the two end points are too long, they'll have to be repeated, say,
per every optical span of, say, 200~300km. Or one might want even one or more
(Ethernet) MUXs on the way so that section OAM&P will also be needed.
My point is that, in the case of end-to-end Ethernet scenario (bypassing or
eliminating the SONET infrastructure), full OAM&P comparable to SONET's will be
needed also for 10GbE, if you, as WAN provider, want to provide the same transport
QoS to your customer.
My conclusion is:
1) OAM&P will not be needed if 10GbE will only ride on OC-192 SONET.
2) When cases arise wherein WAN providers might want to provide end-to-end pure
Ethernet transport, like in IPoW with Ethernet framing, you might have to improve
the current Ethernet (MAC, PHY, etc.) monitor functions to satisfy the needs,
though at the minimum level, of both the WAN providers and the custormers.
Would you please correct me where I'm wrong?
(In support of all those wishing to make 10GbE penetrate into the WAN marekt...)
Roy Bynum wrote:
> Hon,
>
> As you have discerned, there is a major portion of the OAM&P processing that is
> in SONET/SDH network elements that would not be necessary in 10GbE. There are
> three levels of OAM&P in SONET/SDH; segment, line, and path. I am proposing on
> concentrating on the path level OAM for 10GbE. The rest of it can be left to
> dedicated transmission systems. I will be presenting something at Kent that
> deals with this.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> MCI WorldCom
--
Regards,
Dae Young
http://ccl.chungnam.ac.kr/~dykim/