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

RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven points


I think we're talking past each other here (see Tony's lunchtime comment).

Implementation of a "side-band" channel *requires* a scheduler and queueing
of its own. The side-band method is the one that adds the unneeded
complexity by mandating an additional scheduler on top of the ones used by
higher layers that (in any reasonably designed piece of EFM gear) will
already be present.

I challenge this group to come up with appropriate dimensions for such a
side-band channel - what peak or sustained bandwidth? what burst size? -
that does not cause EFM to become an evolutionary dead-end.

Andrew Smith

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 3:53 PM
To: ah_smith@xxxxxxxxxxx; Tony Jeffree
Cc: stds-802-3-efm
Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven points


What you are referring to in the need for "sort of token bucket
scheduler",  and "...want to allow the OAM "channel" an unfair advantage in
the use of spare bandwidth too, implying some sort of priority in the
scheduler" would only apply if the OAM were "frame" based.  If the OAM were
a "side band", or "out-of-band" to the revenue traffic, the all of that
complexity is unneeded.

With an OAM "out-of-band" channel, the OAM bandwidth is predetermined by
the bandwidth of the "side band" data.  It would also not interfere with
the revenue bandwidth.

Thank you,
Roy Bynum