Re: Break Link and Remote Fault
I agree with the comment. I think this is fairly simple. Moreover this
mechanism is so
easy to adopt for usage in dark fiber cases, if and when we want.
Tripathi.
At 11:34 PM 7/15/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Ben,
>
>Thanks for taking this direction, I believe it's the right one. The LSS
>proposal
>did very well at the La Jolla meeting in spite of the FUD (Fear,
>Uncertainty and
>Doubt) use to confuse as significant number of members of the P802.3ae
>committee. This is clearly evident in the voting results on the LSS proposal:
>Yes: 55, No: 32, Abstain: 43. The voting results show that 63.2% of 802.3
>voters
>are in favor of the proposal and 33% of all voters abstaining. Also noteworthy
>is that the highest abstention percentage for any other Logic track motion was
>on the SUPI vote, for which 21.2% of all voters abstained.
>
>Among the FUD that targeted the LSS proposal was the comparison to
>Auto-Negotiation. This can't be farther from the truth. Auto-Negotiation is a
>handshake protocol including timeouts, acknowledgments, and multiple possible
>responses to any request. LSS employs no handshakes whatsoever and employs
>simple and continuous side A to side B signaling while a particular condition
>exists..
>
>Another FUD element was the argument stating that there is no P802.3ae
>objective
>for either Remote Fault or Break Link. I'd like to point out that there is
>little correspondence between objectives and actual functions and
>features. For
>example, there is no objective to perform link initialization, but clearly
>this
>is a necessary function. I assume that there is a desire to include Break Link
>and Remote Fault functionality in P802.3ae, objective or not.
>
>LSS employs simple word oriented signaling at the Physical layer and may be
>transported by all LAN interfaces. In addition to Break Link and Remote Fault,
>LSS possesses the flexibility to be used to transport LAN OAM&P
>information. It
>just doesn't get much simpler than this. I strongly encourage any
>simplifications to LSS protocol.
>
>Best Regards,
>Rich
>
>--
>
>"Brown, Ben [BAY:NHBED:DS48]" wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ben Brown
> > P802.3ae Logic Track Chair
> >
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Benjamin Brown
> > Router Products Division
> > Nortel Networks
> > 1 Bedford Farms,
> > Kilton Road
> > Bedford, NH 03110
> > 603-629-3027 - Work
> > 603-624-4382 - Fax
> > 603-798-4115 - Home
> > bebrown@nortelnetworks.com
> > -----------------------------------------
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
>Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
>nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
>2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@nSerial.com
>Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com
Best Regards,
Devendra Tripathi
Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation
3100 De La Cruz Boulevard
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Phone: (408) 986-4380 Ext 103
Fax: (408) 986-6050
********************************************************************
Web: http://www.vitesse.com