Re: Long distance links
I believe you're on the right track insofar as digging to the root of the
management issue. The fact of the matter is that Ethernet does it one way, and
SONET does it another. My sense is the same as yours: "...instead of
transporting management info on dedicated
circuits, use TCP/IP and packets. It's the histroric trend, moving up the
I have asked numerous questions over this reflector trying to get at the core of
requirements for WAN management. I've seen no responses to those questions. BTW,
I'm sill very much interested in hearing the responses to these questions.
Without knowing the requirements for SONET WAN management, I have to believe
that Ethernet Management, ULP (e.g. Ping, SNMP, Browser) management mechanisms,
Etherenet PHY capabilities for determining things like the BER of each link,
represent sufficient architecture to implement WAN management equivalent or
superior to that of SONET.
"Gerhold, Mark" wrote:
> It sounds as if one of the biggest issues here is with the optical
> repeaters. If I understand correctly, Sonet repeaters are instrumented so
> that the administrator can isolate problems without sending out a truck.
> Consider using a 2-port "LAN" switch instead of a repeater. Switches today
> provide lots of remote maintenance features, including
> o Ping (for I'm alive)
> o SNMP (for tons of performance statistics, and alarms)
> o Browser management (for ease of use)
> With a switch, instead of transporting management info on dedicated
> circuits, use TCP/IP and packets. It's the histroric trend, moving up the
> protocol stack.
> Here's a question on a similar vein. Are WDM amplifiers instrumented to
> isolate BER problems? I thought they did optical amplification. Capturing
> BER info sounds tough.
> Thanks,(signing off)
> Mark Gerhold
> -----Original Message-----
> From: brian.russell@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:brian.russell@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 5:43 AM
> To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; HSSG GbE mail list
> Subject: Re: Long distance links
> Hi Rich,
> here are my veiws on the discussion and where I think a few people may not
> the break down in costs exist for a system that covers are large area.
> SDH and SONET have used an overhead structure because it saves them money.
> this is at the expense of data, but the leasons learnt from the past in PDH
> make this an easy decision.
> From my perspective there is one main difference in what Ethernet has done
> in the
> past and what it is about to do. That's distance. Ethernet is proposing to
> the sanctuary of a building or campus which has full time support staff
> ready to
> fix any problem when it occurs. As soon as you leave this environment the
> cost of
> a problem increases exponentially, whether it be during installation,
> upgrade or
> steady state . This lesson was learnt by the telcos when they first
> optical amplifiers over longhaul links. The mantra then was "why waste
> with wasteful overhead". The answer was found to be "because men in trucks
> out to find the problem is expensive!". Take the numerous problems that
> with networks over a working week. Imagine the hassle if the problem is down
> road somewhere or in another country. Imagine if you are using someone elses
> you have a high BER and you want to fix it. The system adminisrator will
> laugh in
> your face if don't have the basic analytical tools at your disposal that
> gives. This is where the SONET/SDH protocols save money and lots of its.
> why they are in business with substantially less people than 15 years ago.
> have to live with the realisation of JCBs digging up cables, rainwater
> shorting out
> connections etc. You are not talking about an ideal office situation
> Imagine you are trying to place a new optical path through a system running
> several links around town. If you don't have path tagging (trail trace
> in SDH) in some form this will be a nightmare.
> I beleive one of the reasons why ATM did not take off in the office was
> because the
> systems people that had to use it already new Ethernet and were not prepared
> changed to something that looked overly complicated for the job. That
> arguement can
> hold here in reverse. If you try to use an overly simplistic system to save
> a few
> dollars and end up with a system that is very expensive to manage and run
> then you
> will loose. If you use a system that takes on board a system that has
> evolved to
> give the best cost / benefit ratio for that application you will win.
> Another reason I see for using the SONE/SDH rates is that is will allow
> manufactures to make cheaper systems that will seamlessly work with Ethernet
> SONET/SDH at the physical layer. If you choose a different rate then thats
> chipset , another system test round and thats more money and longer time to
> I realise this should not be the primary focus of this forum but systems do
> need to
> be made and the easier the better.
> Brian Russell Ph +353 61 49 5745
> Analog Devices Fax +353 61 49 5868
> Limerick, Ireland brian.russell@xxxxxxxxxx
> Rich Taborek wrote:
> > Andy,
> > You're right on target with your assessment. I'll kick off a new thread
> > this note to address the contentious issue of 10 Gbps Ethernet long
> > links. I have tried to steer the discussion on the "Deconstructing OAM&P"
> > off by Hon Wah Chin to focus on determining what, if any, functions of
> OAM&P are
> > not supported by Ethernet. One strong point of view expressed over this
> > reflector is that OAM&P is the ONLY way to support long links and that the
> > of SONET/SDH is intimately tied in with OAM&P and, therefore, REQUIRED to
> > support long links. I'd like to point out an old saying: "There's more
> than one
> > way to skin a cat". It's crude, but appropriate.
> > It is important to note that that current HSSG objectives call for support
> > Ethernet links at distances of up to 40 km. The only media I'm aware of
> that can
> > achieve these distances in a single Ethernet link (i.e. without
> > EDFAs, regens, etc.) is singlemode fiber. I'm further assuming that the
> > can be leased, owned, begged, borrowed or stolen as this parameter will
> NOT be
> > part of the eventual 10 Gbps Ethernet standard. Beyond this objective,
> there are
> > no related objectives nor sub-objectives to support ANY components of
> > and/or OAM&P. Any such objectives or sub-objectives must be clearly and
> > concisely defined and presented to the HSSG and then voted upon by HSSG
> > attaining 75% approval in order to be considered a formal objective.
> > 802.3 and the HSSG is not a telco standards forum. I'd like to make it
> > that the resoponsibility is on proponents of telco-style long distance
> links to
> > educate the 802.3 committee on aspects of SONET/SDH and OAM&P which are
> > in Etherent and are absolutely required to meet HSSG objectives. What the
> > committee is very good at is architecting copper and fiber-optic based
> > capable of reliably and cost effectively transporting data at distances of
> up to
> > 10s of km. In this respect, Ethernet has no match. Current HSSG objectives
> > position Ethernet to go much faster and farther than the current Ethernet
> > standard.
> > Ethernet operates significantly differently than does SONET/SDH and OAM&P.
> > discussion which points out differences between Ethernet and
> SONET/SDH/OAM&P is
> > essentially irrelevant to the work of the HSSG unless the differences
> cannot be
> > effecively acoomodated in 802.3 or elsewhere in the 802 protocol stack.
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
> > --
> > Andy Leigh wrote:
> > > One of the things that is not be accounted for is that much of
> > > OAM&P information is carried as serial bits inside the transport
> > > bytes. These bytes are either in use by OAM&P or are "silent". Not
> > > SDH/SONET OAM&P doesn't get you back any bandwidth. It's also completely
> > > independent of the stream being transported. If a OC192 links is 100%
> > > congested carrying Ethernet frames, the OAM&P functions will still
> > > perfectly. Although accounted for in the bandwidth, this stuff is really
> > > "out of band" as far as the payload is concerned.
> > >
> > > Now, I think all of this is largely irrelevant. As far as I can see,
> > > being debated here is using SDH/SONET engineering to achieve long
> > > What we're really describing is the use of SDH/SONET "repeaters" because
> > > these already exist. If, instead we intend 10GBE to run as a service
> over a
> > > telco's OC192 infrastructure, then just translate (L2 bridge) at the
> > > and let the Telco use SDH/SONET management tools to run their
> > > infrastructure, If on the other hand, we want to "pinch" chipsets and
> > > hardware to make 10GBE go the distance without re-inventing the wheel,
> > > don't bother implementing SDH/SONET's bells and whistles...
> > >
> > > This is really not an Ethernet issue, but a Telco standards issue. I'd
> > > it like the plague.
> > >
> > > Andy Leigh
> > > Senior Planning Engineer, Strategic Network Developments, New Technology
> > > Tel: +44 (0)171 765 0575
> > > Fax: +44 (0)171 765 0557
> > > Pager: 01893 323488
> > >
Richard Taborek Sr. Tel: 650 210 8800 x101 or 408 370 9233
Principal Architect Fax: 650 940 1898 or 408 374 3645
Transcendata, Inc. Email: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1029 Corporation Way http://www.transcendata.com
Palo Alto, CA 94303-4305 Alt email: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx