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

Re: [EFM-OAM] RE: [EFM] Finally There

Mr. Fujimoto,

I have been attempting to make the Ethernet in the First Mile (EFM) Task 
Force recognize that the customers for the EFM technology are going to 
require the same levels of service that they currently have.  Like you, 
they want to be able to use Ethernet, but not at the cost of security or 
other service level qualities.  Your comments, from the service providers' 
customer exemplifies the requirements that service providers must put on 
any technology that they would deploy, including EFM.  I want to thank you 
for your frank comments and I hope that the industry takes notice of them.

Thank you,
Roy Bynum

At 09:59 PM 3/12/2002 +0900, Y. Fujimoto wrote:

>Francois, Seto-san,
>Thanks your comments. Some comments are below.
>At 17:34 02/03/11 -0500, Francois D. Menard wrote:
>>After reading Fujimodo-San's recap on the benefits of Preamble OAM, I am
>>left at a loss understanding why this should be an "either or"
>>situation.  In my view there are benefits that Frame OAM can benefit
>>that Preamble OAM cannot easily support with existing equipments, namely
>>the relay of management information across an open access point of
>>interconnection that is strictly Ethernet compliant.
>>The frame-based OAM would allow in addition to relay OAM information
>>generated by Ethernet appliances at the customer premises across the EFM
>>access network and across the Open Access POI, to various service
>At the POI, I recognize that we need the health check each other SW.  However,
>I don't like to relay OAM info which is generated by CPE to the other.  If 
>you allow
>to relay, does it mean frame-OAM propagate beyond Bridge? If so you can access
>our facility freely and we cannot accept this lack of security.
>>Good point.  I could agree with you if Preamble OAM did not
>>require amendments to existing 1000BASE-X PCS implementation.
>>If we adopt preamble OAM, all the existing 1000BASE-X MAC/PCS
>>(usually they are one) will be incompatible with IEEE802.3.
>>(See p.20 on suzuki_2_0302.pdf.)
>I'm not interested in preserving our old Ethernet SWs.  The number is 
>quite limited.
>However, I'm quite interested in preserve our service level which is provided
>by SONET/SDH that may be replaced by economical Ethernet technologies.