Re: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven points - MAC address
In your question about "a management entity for registration that is more
light-weight than a MAC address" I would like to give you something from an
old protocol reference manual of mine regarding SDLC.
"MODES OF OPERATION
SDLC supports both POINT-TO-POINT and MULTIPOINT configurations. ..."
One byte in length, the Address Field immediately follows the beginning
flag. The address is always that of a secondary station (in our case the
ONU) on the link (If the primary station (OLT) is transmitting the frame,
the address field identifies the secondary being addressed. If the
secondary is transmitting the frame, this field indicated who the frame is
For application purposes, it is possible to specify special addresses that
direct the frame to a number of secondaries or to all secondaries on the
link. A STATION ADDRESS is the address of a single secondary. A GROUP
ADDRESS is one common to a number of stations and a BROADCAST ADDRESS is on
that all secondaries on the link will accept. Note that an address of all
zeroes is reserved as a 'no station address', hence no secondary should be
assigned this as one of its addresses."
Would this type of addressing perform the function of "a management entity
for registration that is more light-weight than a MAC address"? It is
intended for P2MP infrastructure and can also be used in the P2P for
addressing when there is an intelligent regenerator/repeater that is in
series between the ONU and the OLT.
At 11:16 AM 9/21/01 -0400, Fletcher E Kittredge wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 21:03:57 +0100 "Bob Barrett" wrote:
> > If the CPE is essentially a media converter / repeater (relatively dumb and
> > with minimal hardware) it may not need to have a MAC address in order to
> > support a management entity, however, a management entity and registration
> > would be desirable.
>Good point. I wonder however, if it is possible to come up with a
>management entity for registration that is more light-weight than a
>MAC address. I had always thought that MAC addresses are about as
>simple as they come.
> > P2MP is a different issue and I agree that a MAC address is the logical
> > choice in that case, but I wouldn't want to see the inclusion of a MAC
> > entity made mandatory in the p2p fiber or p2p copper EFM standard.
>Very good point.
> > I don't think encryption of OAM data is necessary on a p2p link if it is in
> > a side-band.
> > If OAM data is mixed in with the payload, even with VLAN, then
> encryption is
> > probably necessary.
> > I guess that's one of my 'pro' arguments for side band ;-).
>Personally, I would take the same situation and alter it a bit. I
>would say in the case of a p2p link, OAM data should be limited to
>that which does not have to be encrypted, namely something like