[EFM] RE: OAM Proposals - a ping by any other name

[Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Martin,

OAMiP is still, at best, a packet type service management technology.  It 
will not provide the "exclusive use" of the customer payload bandwidth by 
the customer.

There are several people that are attempting to argue this based in the 
idea that the PHY bandwidth does not belong to the customer.  The problem 
with that argument is that the IPG and Preamble/SFD are included in the 
bandwidth of 1000BaseX and 100BaseX.  The measurement of the maximum number 
of frames is base in the inclusion of the IPG and Preamble/SFD bits as part 
of the Ethernet frames when calculating the bit transfer rate of the 
un-encoded data.  Since OAMiP is part of the un-encoded data bit transfer 
rate, it belongs to the customer, not the service provider.

Service providers can use part of the customer un-encoded data bit transfer 
rate for packet type services.  This is what they do with Internet services 
today.  The best that they can do with non-packet services (in this case I 
am including Frame Relay as a packet service,) is replace the "inert" bits 
portion of the customer un-encoded data bits with other "inert" bits.  By 
"inert" I mean not carrying any active information such as OAM that does 
not belong to the customer and the customer alone.

Since the preamble is normally considered as "inert"  it gets stripped of 
by private line mapping protocols such as X.86.  (GFP can be problematic 
providing private line services because it has the ability to do OAM in the 
IPG/Preamble replacement.)  Because any OAMiP information gets deleted 
without evaluation at the Ethernet/TDM interface, it is useless for this 
service.

Attempts to market OAMiP technology for Private Line services will only 
cause a level of confusion in the vendor community, and problems for the 
service provider community.  The end customers tend to be smart enough to 
buy what they know to be correct for their needs, not what the vendor 
market is pushing.  The failure of the legacy free carriers is a 
demonstration of that.  Even the next generation technology that the 
service providers have deployed has not paid for itself simply because 
there are not enough customers for it.  I see stand alone OAMiP as one of 
those limited deployment niche technologies.

Thank you,
Roy Bynum



At 10:38 AM 4/22/2002 -0400, Martin Nuss wrote:
>Roy,
>
>I welcome your continued participation on this reflector!  Please
>continue to do so.
>
>The comparison with X.86 is a good one, because there is clearly OAM
>functions in the service provider network (SONET/SDH), and then there is
>OAM between the customer/client equipment attached to the endpoints of
>the link.
>
>In the X.86 example, the service provider OAM is running completely
>independent from the client OAMiF (the service provider probably likes
>it that way).
>
>What we are looking for is an Ethernet OAM layer that can interoperate
>and signal between an Ethernet-over-Optics network and a
>Ethernet-over-SONET (X.86 or GFP) network, and provide OAM end-to-end.
>After all, we can't afford to rip out installed infrastructure these
>days.  OAMiP should allow us to do that, and convert preamble signaling
>and alarming in the Preamble to SONET/SDH signaling/alarming when the
>preamble gets stripped as X.86 maps DA through FC into SONET/SDH.
>
>Martin
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:05 AM
>To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Taborek, Rich;
>Martin Nuss; Kevin.Daines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hsuzuki@xxxxxxxxx
>Cc: MSquire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: OAM Proposals - a ping by any other name
>
>
>Dan,
>
>What I have in mind is allowing the enterprise customer to manage his
>network better over the TDM network with OAMiF.  Ethernet Private Line
>does
>and Ethernet over MPLS should carry the customer generated Ethernet MAC
>control frames, without modification, just like any other Ethernet
>frames.  This makes OAMiF valuable to the enterprise customer just as
>much,
>if not more so that to the service provider.
>
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>
>
>At 01:10 PM 4/22/2002 +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> >Roy,
> >
> >I am uncertain about the scope of what you have in mind. On one side
>you
> >are mentioning 'remote element management' which is in line with what
>is
> >the scope of the EFM OAMiF proposal. On the other side you
> >mention  management of the high bandwidth Ethernet Private Line and
> >Ethernet WAN Packet networks. This alludes in my mind to a network
> >management layer that is well beyond the scope of EFM. Actually there
>will
> >be some discussions on this direction in the Management Area track in
>the
> >MEF Technical Committee meeting this week.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 6:12 AM
> > > To: bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Taborek, Rich; Martin
> > > Nuss; Kevin.Daines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hsuzuki@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: MSquire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Romascanu, Dan (Dan);
> > > rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: RE: OAM Proposals - a ping by any other name
> > >
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > If I were a service provider, network implementer, I could
> > > use OAMiF to
> > > provide end to end packet network support for Ethernet over MPLS as
>a
> > > replacement for Frame Relay.  An enterprise customer can do
> > > remote element
> > > management over an Ethernet over SONET (X.86) leased circuit
>"Private
> > > Line", because the EoS X.86 protocol with transport any
> > > Ethernet frames
> > > that the enterprise system sends out without evaluating them,
> > > including the
> > > OAM MAC Control frames.  A MPLS implementation that is properly
>done,
> > > should do the same thing and treat the Ethernet frames the
> > > same that X.86
> > > does.  This will allow enterprise customers to better manage
> > > their high
> > > bandwidth Ethernet Private Line and Ethernet WAN Packet networks.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Roy Bynum
> > >
> > >