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

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


I had to withdraw my support of this baseline proposal.  The people that 
were in your breakout group originally were replaced by individuals that 
had less of a neutral agenda.  While this might be a natural evaluation, I 
found the group diverting from its original direction.

What forced me to withdraw was the re-insertion in the baseline proposal of 
the new frame type shown in slide 10 as a stand alone preamble with no 
Ethernet frame behind it.  This has not has very much discussion in the EFM 
TF group as a whole, or the dot 3 voters.  This functionality was not part 
of the original functionality that the breakout group has originally agreed 

Several people are saying that preamble will not work properly without that 
non-Ethernet-frame preamble type frame.  The alternative concept is that 
the OAM frame will always be available to be sent, so there is never a need 
to send a preamble without a frame.

Also, the PHY ID was re-introduced in the P2P baseline OAM as well as the 
P2MP, as shown in slide 9.  The breakout group had originally agreed that 
P2P would not support multiple network elements within the P2P link, and so 
the PHY ID was specific to P2MP and should not be part of the basic OAM 

I enjoyed working with the group that you originally invited to 
participate.  Thank you for the oportunity.

Thank you,
Roy Bynum

I have the perception (I could be wrong) that more representation from the 
"preamble" camp participated in developing the baseline.  For example HS 
was there while DG was not.

At 02:58 PM 4/19/2002 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:

>I have a few questions:
>*       OAM in VOC/eoc is not explained in the document.  Is there a
>proposal that should be referenced?
>*       Do these OAM protocols assume no repeaters?  Is the OAM scheme
>designed to work in half-duplex?
>*       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?
>*       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?
>Brad Booth
>Intel Platform Networking Group - Austin
>bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx>
>                 -----Original Message-----
>                 From:   Kevin Daines
>                 Sent:   Friday, April 19, 2002 4:01 PM
>                 To:
>                 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