Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [EFM] OAM developing Geoff's observation.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:36:12 +0100  "Bob Barrett" wrote:
> The logical conclusion of this observation is that EFM should make the OAM
> at layer two as simplistic as possible fulfilling only the basic
> requirements i.e. limited number of managed objects and limited echo (L2
> ping) test. Vendors can then leverage ietf standards (note: the users tends
> to like these) to implement ietf style 'standard' management functions.
> Isn't that what we all have in mind anyway :-).
> The open question then is will the service provider market accept in-band
> management i.e. management IP frames mixed with user traffic, or is there a
> real requirement for a side-band channel. If EFM does need to include a side
> band channel then all that it needs to be is a communications channel (bit
> stream), probably squeezed in the preamble or the IPG (we can debate that
> choice for a while). Vendors can then implement either a standards based
> method of comms over that channel or do there own thing. Personally I would
> expect vendors to choose something like IP over PPP for this.
> I can wrap this all up in a presentation for the next meeting if required.


	Personally, I think your view is widely held and a
presentation on this topic will duplicate material in other
presentations.  I know that I was planning to cover much of it.

        It might be that some duplication is good.  Your viewpoint
would bring more weight to the argument.  Reviewing the quality of
the above, I wouldn't be suprised if you can make the argument more
coherently than others.  I just wonder if there is really an arguement
here...  Does anyone disagree with the statements above?  If not, it
might be best to move on and concentrate on less well discussed