Re: [EFM] RE: OAM Proposals - a ping by any other name
- To: Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: OAM Proposals - a ping by any other name
- From: Geoff Thompson <gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:29:45 -0700
- Cc: "Martin Nuss" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Taborek, Rich" <email@example.com>, <Kevin.Daines@worldwidepackets.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <MSquire@hatterasnetworks.com>, "Richard Brand"<email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-Reply-To: <184.108.40.206.2.20020422101105.01b8b1d0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: email@example.com
At 10:12 AM 4/22/02 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:
>For packet services such as Ethernet VPN, OAMiP is useful to provide
>"Section" equivalent level autonomous fault bit alarms, or a very low
>level maintenance function such as turning on or off "Section" equivalent
>level loop back functions. This is the reason that I supported a
>simplified version of OAMiP as being optional for EFM.
>For Private Line services OAMiP is useless.
I do not believe that this is true.
This assumes that the provide wants to keep a sophisticated customer
completely segregated from OAM. In fact this is not the case, especially
over long term trends. As carriers get squeezed for revenue they will
depend more and more for input from their customers. Customer's facilities
will span several supplier's environments. They are gonna have to be able
to participate. I believe that putting the relevant data within frames is
the only viable way to allow that to happen.