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

RE: [EFM] [EFM-OAM] OAM Transport Proposal




Brad,

All good questions. Responses in-line below:

-----Original Message-----
From: Booth, Bradley [mailto:bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 2:58 PM
To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [EFM] [EFM-OAM] OAM Transport Proposal 



Kevin,

I have a few questions:


*	OAM in VOC/eoc is not explained in the document.  Is there a
proposal that should be referenced?

KQD> To date, I am not aware of a proposal that has been made to 802.3ah. VOC/eoc refers to the operations channel embedded in VDSL today. I believe there is an ITU-T specification which could (should) be referenced. At this point, we're floating the idea of OAM in Frames as mandatory for Copper making it similar to its optical brethren.



*	Do these OAM protocols assume no repeaters?  Is the OAM scheme
designed to work in half-duplex?

KQD> The proposal precludes the use of OAM on half-duplex links. This should probably be clarified in the presentation. Slide 20 of the following presentation subtly mentioned "full duplex", in red, in the upper left hand corner.

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/efm/public/mar02/suzuki_2_0302.pdf

This should be called out in the proposal.



*	Is there a specific OAM scheme that should be used for end-to-end
(versus link-by-link) OAM messaging?  Carrier class equipment has section,
line and path, do we have something similar?

KQD> The EFM OAM Sub-Task Force has as a non-requirement the following:

"Anything outside of a single link (station management, monitoring of CPE-sided links, etc) is not part of EFM OAM".

Reference the following presentation for more information on requirements and non-requirements discussed within the OAM STF:

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/efm/public/jan02/squire_2_0102.pdf 




*	IEEE Std. 802.3z currently permits GbE fiber links to generate
either 7 or 8 bytes of preamble.  How does the OAM in preamble compensate
for this?

KQD> This proposal would require a change to 1000BASE-X PCS (for implementations opting to provide OAM in Preamble functionality), in that preamble would be fixed at 8 bytes, requiring the IPG to vary between 11 and 13 bytes. The result would appear similar to 10 Gigabit Ethernet and its requirement to align the Start of Packet to Lane 0 causing IPG to vary between 8 and 15 bytes (as I recall). 

Thanks,
Brad



KQD> Thanks for reading and asking questions.



Brad Booth
Intel Platform Networking Group - Austin
bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx>  

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Kevin Daines
[mailto:Kevin.Daines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
		Sent:	Friday, April 19, 2002 4:01 PM
		To:	stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
		Subject:	[EFM] [EFM-OAM] OAM Transport Proposal 

		 << File: OAMtransport_041902.pdf >> All,

		A number of individuals have worked since the St. Louis
Meeting in March on a compromise OAM Transport proposal. We are posting the
proposal for review/comment from the larger 802.3ah Task Force.



		Kevin Daines