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

RE: [EFM] RE: OAM Transport Proposal


This is the sticking point.  802.3 specifies service interfaces and a PHY
management interface.  To assume that EFM is going to do any management of
the link without using either of these interfaces implies that the OAM must
be handled inside the PHY.  If OAMinP is not handling its OAM messages
either in the PHY or via a service interface or PHY management interface,
then I think this is "broken" within the context of Ethernet.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:29 PM
Cc: ''
Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: OAM Transport Proposal


The simple Fault and Alarm conditions that are expeditiously transported
via OAMinP should not utilize the relatively slow MDIO/MDC mechanisms.
The management entity for OAMinP is not significantly different than
that which carriers are used to for SONET OAM for handling the same
conditions. I believe that the specific management interface is out of
IEEE P802.3ah scope.

Best Regards,


"Booth, Bradley" wrote:
> Matt,
> 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
> some way to pass this preamble OAM information to the management entity.
> 802.3, this is done via MDIO/MDC (or management frames).  A management
> 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.
> Cheers,
> Brad