Re: [EFM] RE: OAM Proposals - a ping by any other name
I will say the same thing to you as I have said to Hiroshi on several
occasions. OAMiP has no relationship, compatibility, or comparibility with
SONET. SONET has three separate levels of bit stream encoding and
management, while OAMiP does not. SONET services treats the PCS equivalent
encoding of the customer data bit stream as part of the customer data
bandwidth, OAMiP does not. Please, in future references, do not make any
comparisons between OAMiP and SONET except as how they are different.
At 08:22 PM 4/30/2002 -0700, Rich Taborek wrote:
>Actually, service providers today pull management information out of
>"overhead" and not frame information. The OAMinP portion of the OAM
>Baseline proposals go one better by providing SONET equivalent
>information from an Ethernet stream without the overhead expense. Frame
>must be routed to the user or management entity. OAMinP information
>always goes directly to the management entity.
>Geoff Thompson wrote:
> > Roy-
> > At 10:12 AM 4/22/02 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:
> > >Martin,
> > >
> > >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
> > Geoff