Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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 

Ed Chang      

> 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.
>  Vipul