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

Re: [EFM] RE: OAM Proposals - a ping by any other name


I apologize for the tone of this e-mail.  I realize that Rich, Hiroshi, and 
others may not have very much experience with SONET, so it is easy for them 
to get confused.  There may be others that are attempting to "market" OAMiP 
by positioning it as something that it is not.  It is sometimes a 
"marketing" practice to attempt to confuse, or blur the details of one 
thing in order to make it appear to be something else.  I am not 
insinuating that OAMiP is being "marketed" in that way.

I think that bit level alarms generated faster than every 125us is not a 
bad thing.  The rest of the OAMiP proposal, I do not think is a good thing.

Thank you,
Roy Bynum

At 06:03 AM 5/1/2002 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:

>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 
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>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.
>>Best Regards,
>>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