Re: AW: Deconstructing OAM&P
We all enjoyed the very informative discussions on "data" versus "Telco."
However, I believe from the reflectors the members' opinion remain about the
same as when we left Montreal meeting. Let us have MAC/PLUS using 10 Gbps
with Ethernet protocol, and MAC/PHY using 9.58464 with SONET protocol --
solve the speed conversion issue. We have several realistic speed conversion
proposals to be finalized, or to be voted by members.
The simplicity and cost-effectiveness of Ethernet is the "KING" in the
networking industry including both "Data" and "Telco" sectors, since the
explosion of Internet. From my intensive past experience in "ATM_Formu
activities," it confirmed the market requirement, again, simple and
cost-cost-effective technology rules the networking industry -- ATM (overly
complex traffic control) lost to Ethernet (simply let it collide).
I do not see the "duplex optical 802.3" has anything to do with 802.3 being
implemented to WAN. The only reason WAN adopting 802.3 is that WAN lacks the
"magic touch" to cost-reduce it to compete in the marketplace; therefore, WAN
borrows Ethernet "magic touch" in cost-effectiveness to stay in marketplace.
Both WAN and LAN need each other to foster coexistence, but not to impose it
to the other.
The ample arguments from many "data" people to keep HSSG remaining an
Ethernet rather than SONET by itself is the proof of the wisdom of those
people "knowing how top keep it simple and cost-effective."
I will not overly worry about WAN controlling HSSG. If they know how to do
it, they will do it without waiting for HSSG anyway. Now they are looking
for joint-corporation between LAN and WAN, which is the right approach by the
majority of HSSG members agreeing to follow.
Edward S. Chang
NetWorth Technologies, Inc.
> If you could turn back time, and do away with full duplex optical 802.3,
> might could prevent the expansion of 802.3 into the WAN environment.
> Unfortunately, time can not be erased, or the previous work done by the
> 802.3 WG. 802.3 is already being implemented over WAN services. The only
> problem is that it can not manage itself. I would much rather see the HSSG
> control the standard than allow other standards organizations that have
> other agenda's take control it.
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> MCI WorldCom
> Walter Thirion wrote:
> > This statement is exactly what many people are afraid of and what we
> > tried desperately to separate in the speed ad hoc. Asking 802.3 to buy
> > into the WAN management protocol is going to be very difficult. It is
> > similar to the problem we've been having trying to separate the line
> > code from the MAC/PLS speed.
> > Walt
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 8:17 AM
> > > To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: Heiles Juergen; HSSG
> > > Subject: Re: AW: Deconstructing OAM&P
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Rich,
> > >
> > > I do not think that an OC rate MAC/PHY would have been
> > > suggested by several
> > > different people if it were not for the OAM&P issue.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Roy Bynum
> > > MCI WorldCom
> > >
> > > Rich Taborek wrote:
> > >