[EFM] OAM - link sharing (was Faye's seven points)
I think you are splitting hairs here: if the OAM traffic goes down the same
wire/fibre/whatever link as the customer's traffic then it is, by
definition, "sharing the same bandwidth". If you run them over separate TDM
channels on the same link then you are using a (time-based) link-sharing
scheduler to place the different types of traffic onto the link. If you mix
them into the same channel (what you call "frame"-based) then you'll likely
still use a link-sharing scheduler to place the different traffic onto the
link - it might be priority-based, it might be some sort of
weighted-round-robin (or you might even choose to use just "best effort"
with a single traffic class/queue), whatever you want to choose. There is no
fundamental difference - you're still scheduling frames from one or more
queues onto the link. Not wanting to "share the customer's bandwidth" is
*not* a valid argument in favour of a "separate" TDM channel for OAM.
I'll let others deal with your "paranoid" security argument, although that
just seems like an addressing (and maybe authentication) issue to me.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Roy Bynum
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 3:10 PM
To: Harry Hvostov; 'Faye Ly'; Harry Hvostov; Roy Bynum
Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven points
I think that Faye is correct. If the OAM is "frame" based, then it will
share the same bandwidth with the customer traffic. Only if the OAM is
"side band" will it not share the same bandwidth as the customer traffic.
>Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 8:15 AM
>To: Harry Hvostov; 'Faye Ly'
>Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven points
>I do not like the idea of inserting frames into the customer traffic. I
>not sure how it would work such that, for security reasons, only the
>intended physical interface on a P2MP deployment would receive the OAM
>Ethernet frames. Call me paranoid.