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

RE: [EFM] Re: OAM Transport Proposal

Just a few comments below:


		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Matt Squire [mailto:mattsquire@xxxxxxx]
		Sent:	Tuesday, April 23, 2002 10:29 PM
		Subject:	[EFM] Re: OAM Transport Proposal

		Another attempt to address multiple questions at one time.

		1) MDIO slowing preamble down.  The intent is that the any
bit handling
		of the preamble is done below the MDIO interface.  One of
the reasons,
		for me anyway, to keep the use of preamble to communicating
a few very
		specific states was for this point exactly.  Trying to
communicate real
		'data' would be slowed down by getting the data from the
		interface.  The assumption is that the RS is enhanced to
hold a small
		number of state variables which can be communicated via the
		without turning into management frames over MDIO.

		BJB> Using the RS for the preamble will bypass the need for
use of the MDIO.  I just want to be sure that we do clarify that "pervasive
access" does not mean instantaneous or high-speed access.  I believe David
Law's term "pervasive" means that the MAC, MAC Control and RS all have the
same direct access to the MIBs rather than via MDIO.  The management entity
would have the same speed of access to the MAC Control MIB data as it would
to the RS MIB data.  Therefore, the only way the RS can be more responsive
than MAC Control is if there are state machines in the RS to handle OAMinP
without management intervention.

		3) Null/Dummy frames screwing up MIBS.  Yes semantics of the
		frames variable will have to change to say something like
"except for
		null/dummy frames which are counted by ...".   But I think
things can be
		defined in a way thats backward compatible. This, along with
only using
		those frames when the other side supports it, should have
the effect of
		MIB compatibility.

		BJB> I get the feeling that there are a lot of people that
would rather live without this feature.

		4) Clauses effected.  We did a preliminary examination of
the clauses
		that needed to be addressed by the proposal.  The following
is the list
		as I see it.  
		  - Clause 30 (Management).  New MIB objects, enhanced
locally and also
		enhanced to include peer info.
		  - Clause 31 (MAC Control).  Add OAM section, fraem
formats, protocol
		operation, bla bla bla
		  - Annex 43B.  Add OAM types to slow protocols list, maybe
change slow
		protocol definition, etc.
		  - Clauses 22 & 45.  New PHY monitoring registers for
things like RX
		power, signal-to-noise ration, etc.
		  - Annex 30A & 30B.  New OIDs for managed objects. 
		  - Clause (new).  OAM preamble byte format, use,
description, etc.
		  - Clause 22 & 35 (RS/MII, RS/GMII) - Dummy/null frame
		inclusion of preamble transport capability.
		The preamble specific changes are the latter two.  Please
point out if
		we're missing some clause changes somewhere.  This list does
not reflect
		which clause changes are significant and which are minor.  

		BJB> Do you have a list of clause editors to perform these

		- Matt