RE: Break Link and Remote Fault
Rich,
I agree that the supporters of LSS backed it because of the OAM&P
capabilities. The more vocal opposition in earlier meetings was due to the
LSS OAM&P being optional and an opening for feature creep. At the meeting
in La Jolla, I heard concerns about both the optional OAM&P capabilities and
the IPG usage.
My concerns are the same as Ben's. We don't have a counter proposal for
Break Link and Remote Fault. I understand that there is a strong desire for
these features, but we don't have anything else on the table at this time.
Cheers,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 5:21 PM
To: HSSG
Subject: Re: Break Link and Remote Fault
Brad,
I don't believe that the biggest opposition to LSS was its
OAM&P capabilities.
Many notable supporters of LSS support it because of these
capabilities.
However, in order to proceed, it may be beneficial to
separate the "transport"
capabilities of LSS from its "data". LSS uses a 4-byte word
not unlike config
words of 1000BASE-X for transport. Break Link and Remote
Fault data are coded
into LSS words. OAM&P data is likewise coded.
It will take some work ensure that LSS OAM&P data is
compatible with SONET OAM&P
data. If there is some fear that this work will delay the
definition of LSS
Break Link and Remote Fault, then it may be reasonable to
separate this from the
base LSS proposal. I believe that the current proposal
allows this separation
since it provides no way to insure SONET OAM&P
compatibility.