RE: Link Status thoughts
Please let me add one more comments, since this might be a big difference.
What I am saying with link_reset (channel_reset) is not intended to reset
the PCS synchronization, but intended to reset the Layer-1 channel. Push
a reset button in the following note means Clear the link up status in the
Link Partner. My original intention is not reset the PCS synchronization
nor restart the whole PHY from scratch.
At 00:22 00/11/05 +0900, Osamu ISHIDA wrote:
> > So one of the fundamental issues that needs to be resolved before we
> > are likely to get concensus is which of the following need to be supported
> > by link signalling:
> > A) The simplex link in this pair isn't working
> > B) This simplex link isn't working
> > C) There is a fault detected internal to this physical layer
> > D) There is a physical fault that can't be isolated to this physical layer
> > E) I'm resetting
> > F) You should reset
> > I believe we should do A and B rather than C and D. MDIO management can
> > be used to determine if the fault that triggered A or B can be isolated
> > to a particular sublayer. We seem to be getting dangerously close to
> > concensus on this part. I'm lukewarm about supporting F and against
> > supporting E. If we support E or F, each one should be distinctly
> > detectable.
> In my mind F) is on the same line with A) and B). I never propose E).
> That's why I use link_reset (channel_reset) instead of reset.
> C) D) is OAM&P which I have been recommending to this community for a
> long time.
> I believe that remote reset is indispensable in 10GbE, especially for 40km
> links. Having no resetting mechanism is a nightmare for the large network
> manager. In the real world, their is no perfect system. Traveling just for
> pushing the reset button is .....
> What I want to have is pushing the reset button of the Link Partner remotely,
> and hopefully know its reaction; he reacts correctly (reset complete; Layer-1
> is fine) or incorrectly (Layer-1 is gone).
NTT Network Innovation Laboratories