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

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


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.

>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum