RE: [EFM] RE: OAM Transport Proposal
> 3) How address multiple links? We are explicitly not addressing
> multi-link scenarios. The common transport mechanism is a MAC control
> frame that cannot be forwarded off the local link. For end-to-end or
> multi-hop Etherent OAM, I'd refer you to some of the work happening in
> the MEF.
> BJB> MEF is not a standards body.
Actually the MEF Technical Committee does take upon new standardization work, when it considers that other standard bodies do not have relevant work in the space of interest for Metro Ethernet. There is work for OAM in Metro Ethernet being done in the MEF management track. They (we) are looking closely at the EFM OAM work.
> Is there something in this
> OAM proposal
> that permits other standards bodies (i.e. IETF, etc.) to
> create an overall
> management structure?
Did you mean to ask if 'everything' is in place'?
> It would seem to me that if OAM in frames is
> mandatory across all links, that it could be used to carry information
> end-to-end, but that it would be up to the management entity
> to perform this
> operation. Is this a correct assumption?
The assumption sounds correct to me, but this is out of the charter of EFM, which is strictly speaking limited to one specific link.