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

Re: (corrected) Re: [EFM] RE: OAM Transport Proposal


In response to your comment"
"The third, and PHY fault indication / protection  by MAC control layer is
something like SONET protection handled by IP packets which engineers never 
have used."

The use of Preamble for transport of any information has absolutely nothing 
in common with SONET or SDH.  IP packet do not use any form of the 
protection handling that is used in SONET or SDH.  IP protection is at 
layer 3.  OAMiP is at layer 2 within the SONET transport service, within 
the encoded customer bandwidth.  SONET/SDH protection is at layer 1, 
underneath any encoding that is in the customer bandwidth payload.

It may be a matter of confusion to enterprise data people, but the encoding 
of the data stream in the payload is considered a layer 2 function to data 
transmission services.  As far as service standards for service providers 
are concerned, the encoding data stream is not a physical layer 
function.  It is a data link layer function.  That is the reason that SONET 
facilities are based on the use of OAM that is in a separately encoded 
facility from the encoded customer data.  OAMiP is part of the encoded 
customer data.  It is part payload only and has no relationship to any form 
of operations, administration, maintenance, or protection functionality of 

Please do not continue to make references to any similarities between SONET 
and OAMiP.

Thank you,
Roy Bynum
Thank you,
Roy Bynum

At 10:08 AM 4/23/2002 -0700, Hiroshi Suzuki wrote:

>At 09:51 AM 4/23/2002 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:
>>If I understand you correctly, given that there will always be additional 
>>latency translating the MDIO/MDC frames into preamble information, and 
>>then send the preamble, even without a standard frame, it will not 
>>provide any advantage in greater responsiveness than OAMiF.  If that is 
>>the case, then there is no advantage to OAMiP under any 
>>circumstances.  If that is the case, why include it even as optional?
>>Thank you,
>>Roy Bynum
>First, Preamble handler is located in RS layer (  RS layer is strictly a 
>part of PHY )
>which has the  high-speed control  interface  ( common to MAC and above ).
>So the speed is not the issue.  Refer  the preamble proposals presented in 
>last several meetings.
>The second, the OAMiF will be mostly like implemented by SW/FW
>( that's the main reason why people want to use it ? )
>the resulting latency would be unpredictable,
>while OAMiP detect indication will be handle by HW with predictable latency.
>The third, and PHY fault indication / protection  by MAC control layer is
>something like SONET protection handled by IP packets
>which engineers never have used.
>>At 06:59 AM 4/23/2002 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:
>>>A management frame I described is that defined in Clause 22 as a MDIO/MDC
>>>communication.  If the preamble is filtered by the PHY, then there has to be
>>>some way to pass this preamble OAM information to the management entity.  In
>>>802.3, this is done via MDIO/MDC (or management frames).  A management frame
>>>takes over 25 us to be passed across the MDIO/MDC interface.  Unless the
>>>intention is to have the PHY handle all OAM in preamble without management
>>>entity intervention, then the response to the OAM in preamble will be
>>>hampered by the MDIO/MDC interface.
>>>Sent from my Blackberry...