Re: AW: Deconstructing OAM&P
I believewe we all agree at the framer (encapsulating 10xGbE over SONET), we
need OAM&P to transmit data through WAN. I am sure, our very committed
friend, Roy, and others are trying to simplify it.
However, at the MAC/Plus, a traditional Ethernet environment, only Ethernet
protocols are required. I think that is what most of us agreed to it. I do
not believe anyone is trying to impose SONET OAM&P to LAN, which is counter
> 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
> benefits are.
> Thank you.