RE: AW: Deconstructing OAM&P
While I consider myself a member of the LAN Camp, whatever that
means, I also think we will suffer some kind of a loss by completely
rejecting Roy Bynum's arguments.
If I understand Roy correctly, he is not arguing in favor of making
Ethernet embrace WAN "with all of its baggage"; on the contrary, he
has suggested a pruned down version of it.
Every camp has a set of tenets. Many of us easily state that the LAN
camp's tenet is "keep it simple, keep it cost-effective". I believe
one of the telco camp's tenets is "keep it manageable." Since I
strongly believe in my tenet, I must concede that there must be
reasons why the other person believes in his tenets.
Roy, may I make a suggestion. If you believe that Ethernet as is
(i.e., without any OAM&P functions) will not succeed as a WAN
solution, please educate us as to why not. Please take specific
examples - a cable broke, a connector got dirty, power to a switch
hut was lost.....I am so naive I can't even think of examples - and
educate us as to why the additional cost of some of the Path
management functions you have suggested is not as high as the
274 Ferguson Drive
Mountain View CA 94043
> Quite frankly, I find the argument made by a few people
> that the mere fact that
> we are using fiber optics as a transmission medium for
> Ethernet somehow leaves
> us with no other choice but to embrace the WAN with all
> of its baggage, utterly
> ridiculous. Following this philosophy, if we decide to
> run Ethernet over barbed
> wire, we will have no choice but to move 802.3 under the
> auspices of the
> Department of Corrections...