Re: Break Link and Remote Fault
There is general agreement that being capable of reporting
break link and remote fault is useful.
Since the WIS has the capability of carrying OAM&P,
providing a standardized form of this feature in the LAN
has some amount of support.
Though these features might be categorized as "should have"
and "nice to have", respectively, I don't think formal
objectives are necessary. I think all would be in favor
of supporting the features. It comes down to finding a
mechanism that can be supported.
One might be tempted to think, based on the results of the
LSS vote last Tuesday, that these features aren't worth
supporting if the mechanism is LSS. I'd like to know if
this is true or if we're simply stalling to see if there
is something else out there that is better. We can't stall
indefinitely. If a proposal is forthcoming, time is of the
essence. If LSS is the only proposal, do we go with it or
give up on a standardized mechanism for reporting break link,
remote fault and OAM&P?
Thomas Dineen wrote:
> I think we have the cart before the horse here. First
> we need to understand why the proposal failed.
> Did it fail because of opposition to the concept of
> signaling Break Link and Remote Fault, or did it fail because
> of opposition to the proposed method of signaling in the IFG?
> I would suggest that we first develop a consensus
> on whether this function is required. This consensus could be
> demonstrated in the form of an objective. Secondly if the
> first question is answered in the affirmative we should then
> pursue consensus on the method, and lastly the detailed
> Now I know this process may have schedule implications,
> but as the results of the last meeting demonstrate, consensus
> can be difficult to schedule.
> Thomas Dineen
> The LSS proposal was not initially accepted to be part
> of draft D1.0. The opponents of this proposal felt that
> this was too complicated a method for reporting Break
> Link and Remote Fault. Since I've heard many times on
> this reflector and in the meetings that, if a proposal
> is going to be shot down a substitute should be made to
> take its place, I'd like to request just such a substitute.
> Another thing to remember. According to Jonathan's
> schedule, this was the "last new proposals" meeting.
> I'll be interested to hear proposals for break link
> and remote fault reporting that do not include major
> new ideas.
Router Products Division
1 Bedford Farms,
Bedford, NH 03110
603-629-3027 - Work
603-624-4382 - Fax
603-798-4115 - Home