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

Re: [EFM] RE: Pause frame usage in transport networks




unsubscribe
----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Roy Bynum" <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
À : "Ben Brown" <bbrown@xxxxxxxx>
Cc : <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>
Envoyé : vendredi 21 février 2003 20:49
Objet : Re: [EFM] RE: Pause frame usage in transport networks


>
> Ben,
>
> You are correct on most counts.
>
> Unfortunately, the functionality does not exist that you refer to in your
> comment: "The only other way around this would be to have built a protocol
> on top of the Ethernet PHY. This protocol would have an envelope for the
> encoded data stream and an overhead for the service provider's OAM."
>
> I attempted to propose something of this nature early on the "decision"
> process of the 802.3 TF but it was rejected.  I think, as is the case now,
> that most of the people in the TF only knew about the way that "packet"
> services function and were unaware of their lack of understanding of how
> all other services function.
>
> Within this TF, I believe that it is too late to go back and develop that
> functionality for PHYs other than the 802.3ah copper PHY.  Since
"Ethernet"
> is the specific domain of the 802.3 WG, it is unlikely that any other
> standards body will develop that functionality.
>
> As such, it must be recognized that for service provider support
> capability, other than the copper PHY, 802.3ah is functionally limited to
> "packet" services.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
>
> At 11:59 AM 2/21/2003 -0500, Ben Brown wrote:
>
> >Roy,
> >
> >Since I am also fairly new to the transport market, I'm the most
> >familiar with "packet" services. In these kinds of services, 802.3ah
> >OAM would be used between the ONU and the OLT. Another kind of OAM
> >would be necessary between the OLTs (SONET OAM, perhaps). The
> >service provider would have to monitor all of these to understand
> >the quality of the overall link.
> >
> >In the service you refer to as "private", the 802.3ah OAM would
> >traverse the entire "link" from ONU1 to ONU2. If the "link" goes
> >down or begins to deteriorate, it is up to the service provider
> >to use any additional OAM operating over the network to determine
> >which of the physical links is the source of the problem. That
> >part of the transport network that uses a SONET type protocol
> >can use SONET OAM. However, two of these physical links are the
> >ONU to OLT links. If these are ethernet (if they're not, why are
> >we talking about this), there is no additional OAM that can be
> >operated over them. Therefore, something else must be done, e.g.
> >tapping off the data stream to determine the number of coding
> >violations or FCS errors. I don't know if this is considered
> >illegal or not in any countries.
> >
> >The only other way around this would be to have built a protocol
> >on top of the ethernet PHY. This protocol would have an envelope
> >for the encoded data stream and an overhead for the service
> >provider's OAM. Doesn't something like this already exist? Isn't
> >this the reason for the huge interest these days in Ethernet over
> >Sonet protocols? Perhaps this is what you were pushing for 4 years
> >ago at the beginning of 10GE. There are too many PHYs that already
> >exist to make these kinds of changes to them.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Ben
> >
> >Roy Bynum wrote:
> > >
> > > Ben,
> > >
> > > It appears that we are starting to have some "ships in the night"
effects
> > > in this thread.
> > >
> > >  From what you are saying, all your comments, including reference to
> > > E.ethna would only apply to "packet" services.  Since "packet"
services,
> > > including so called "broadband services" are relatively new and are
getting
> > > most of the attention of people trying to "create" a market it is
> > > understandable that most people would think of only these services as
a
> > > market for 802.3ah.
> > >
> > > In reality, the long time established market, and the vast majority of
the
> > > bandwidth in the data communications "core" is not "packet".  It would
> > > behove the TF to remember that the potentially larger market for
802.3ah is
> > > actually in the "private" services sector and make provisions to
> > support it.
> > >
> > > Personally, I believe that the MAC Frame based OAM does provide end to
end
> > > support for the customer, but still leaves nothing for the service
provider
> > > for leased line services.  Unlike the 10GbE WAN phy, GbE, even with
802.3ah
> > > OAM still does not provide OAM support for the service provider.  In
this
> > > respect, little has changed since I made my presentation in 1999
stating
> > > the need of service provider level OAM for dark fiber and other
"leased
> > > line" types of Ethernet services.
> > >
> > >  From a service provider view point, the 802.3ah OAM is only useful
for
> > > "packet" services, which in many cases already have other "in band"
> > > management capabilities in their existing capital equipment.  I would
begin
> > > to question why, in this age of shrinking capital budgets, would
service
> > > providers replace their existing equipment/interfaces with 802.3ah
capable
> > > equipment/interfaces.  This goes directly to the criteria of "broad
market
> > > potential".
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Roy Bynum
> > >
> > > At 10:50 AM 2/21/2003 -0500, Ben Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > >Shahram,
> > > >
> > > >As Roy Bynum has pointed out, the "leased line" network would pass
> > > >the OAM frames end to end. The "packet" networks would not. Just
> > > >use the appropriate protocol based on your network type.
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >Ben
> > > >
> > > >Shahram Davari wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ben,
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Ben Brown [mailto:bbrown@xxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:27 AM
> > > > > > To: Shahram Davari
> > > > > > Cc: 'Siamack Ayandeh'; Roy Bynum; Geoff Thompson;
mattsquire@xxxxxxx;
> > > > > > Chau Chak; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: Pause frame usage in transport networks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shahram,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OAM is a link specific protocol.
> > > > > > If a customer wants to check
> > > > > > connectivity within his private network and there are multiple
> > > > > > links with switches between his end stations, he would not use
> > > > > > OAM.
> > > > >
> > > > > But if a customer is buying a leased-line or private-line service
(like
> > > > EOS),
> > > > > he expects the service behave like a single link for him. So he
should
> > > > > be able to run 802.3ah OAM between its sites. Note that I am not
> > talking
> > > > > about switched services, I am talking about pure point-to-point
> > services.
> > > > >
> > > > >  This same thing would apply to an access/transport network
> > > > > > that has multiple links. You have to use a higher layer
protocol,
> > > > > > something that is not link specific.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yours,
> > > > > -Shahram
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Ben
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shahram Davari wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Siamak,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What should a customer do if he wants to check the
> > > > > > connectivity between his sites?
> > > > > > > You need to be able to pass OAM frames through the core.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Shahram
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Siamack Ayandeh [mailto:sayandeh@xxxxxxx]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:30 PM
> > > > > > > > To: Shahram Davari
> > > > > > > > Cc: Roy Bynum; Ben Brown; Geoff Thompson;
mattsquire@xxxxxxx;
> > > > > > > > Chau Chak;
> > > > > > > > stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: Pause frame usage in transport
networks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sharam, So its settled then.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Siamack
> > > > > > > > P.S. you never mentioned what OAM function needs to be sent
> > > > > > > > beyond OLT. Why
> > > > > > > > for example the far side may be interested in BER of the
> > > > > > near side?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Shahram Davari wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Siamak and all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I was just talking to a major carrier and in their initial
> > > > > > > > deployment
> > > > > > > > > of EOS they are relying on customer shaping/rate limiting.
> > > > > > > > They don't send
> > > > > > > > > any PAUSE at all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yours,
> > > > > > > > > Shahram
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Shahram Davari
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:21 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: 'Siamack Ayandeh'; Roy Bynum
> > > > > > > > > > Cc: Ben Brown; Geoff Thompson; mattsquire@xxxxxxx; Chau
Chak;
> > > > > > > > > > stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: [EFM] RE: Pause frame usage in transport
networks
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Siamak and all,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for starting discussion on my original question.
> > > > > > > > > > But my original question was more related to 802.3ah
OAM.
> > > > > > > > > > Do you think that the OLT should terminate 802.3ah OAM
> > > > > > > > > > frames received from ONU?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please see some comments in-line.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yours,
> > > > > > > > > > -Shahram
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: Siamack Ayandeh [mailto:sayandeh@xxxxxxx]
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:49 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > To: Roy Bynum
> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Ben Brown; Geoff Thompson; mattsquire@xxxxxxx;
Shahram
> > > > > > > > > > > Davari; Chau
> > > > > > > > > > > Chak; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Pause frame usage in transport networks
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Roy,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I suggest that we shy away from generalizations that
arise
> > > > > > > > > > > from a broad brush
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion. I made very specific comments on the
> > > > > > mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > and would be happy to
> > > > > > > > > > > discuss specifics.  Here is a brief summary (Please
> > > > > > note that
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion was
> > > > > > > > > > > focused on EoS for Ethernet Private Line type
services. So
> > > > > > > > > > > both ends of the service
> > > > > > > > > > > would have the same traffic parameters. More
> > > > > > involved service
> > > > > > > > > > > definitions were not
> > > > > > > > > > > part of this discussion):
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Network to subscriber Pause has advantages over
> > > > > > shaping at
> > > > > > > > > > > subscriber
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't call it advantage. I think both are
> > > > > > > > acceptable. In one case
> > > > > > > > > > the ONU drops packet while in other case the OLT.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Subscriber to network Pause is UNlikely to be
invoked as
> > > > > > > > > > > most often the backbone
> > > > > > > > > > > link is the bottleneck. However if it does network
would
> > > > > > > > > > > buffer and subsequently
> > > > > > > > > > > drop packets.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Agree. The link BW is usually more than the SONET VC.
Besides
> > > > > > > > > > OLT can't
> > > > > > > > > > back pressure the SONET.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Sending Pause to the far end is not practical
> > > > > > > > > > > as it would require
> > > > > > > > > > > large buffers to absorb the wide area round trip
delays.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We have heard some customers requiring this
> > functionality. The
> > > > > > > > > > problem is, how can we have both ONU-OLT pause and
> > > > > > ONU-ONU pause?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. Pause would not interfere with OAM, if anything it
> > avoids
> > > > > > > > > > > loss of OAM frames and
> > > > > > > > > > > the resulting time outs.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Actually if you read 802.3ah section 55.1.6.3 it says
that
> > > > > > > > > > PAUSE frames
> > > > > > > > > > may delay/prevent signaling of critical events. I think
the
> > > > > > > > > > reason is that
> > > > > > > > > > PAUSE frames are treated the same as user MAC frames.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards, Siamack
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Roy Bynum wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ben, Siamack,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In these comments I am seeing the movement toward an
link
> > > > > > > > > > > facility that can
> > > > > > > > > > > > be labeled as "Ethernet", but has little or none of
> > > > > > > > the inherent
> > > > > > > > > > > > characteristics of reliability and low latency
variance.
> > > > > > > > > > > Any Ethernet
> > > > > > > > > > > > service that claims to be full duplex, but drops
frames
> > > > > > > > > > > without generating
> > > > > > > > > > > > a "collision" when congested will fail meet the
basic
> > > > > > > > reliability
> > > > > > > > > > > > characteristic of any 802.3 standard that I am aware
of.
> > > > > > > > > > > This is NOT Ethernet.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The ONU should be allowed to "pause" the GFP/OLT
> > > > > > on any one
> > > > > > > > > > > link, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > > GFP/OLT, should be allowed to "pause" the ONU on any
one
> > > > > > > > > > > link.  With proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > configuration of the operands, an ONU at one end of
> > an end
> > > > > > > > > > > to end "link"
> > > > > > > > > > > > should be able to "pause" the ONU at the other end.
> > > > > > > > Without that
> > > > > > > > > > > > capability, what is being defined is no more
reliable
> > that
> > > > > > > > > > > what exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > today, and is some respects is less reliable than
the
> > > > > > > > alternative.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > When an end to end link starts "dropping" frames,
the
> > data
> > > > > > > > > > > packets get
> > > > > > > > > > > > retransmitted in new frames which now adds to the
> > > > > > > > > > > congestion of a link and
> > > > > > > > > > > > thus lowers the effective access bandwidth that can
be
> > > > > > > > > > > utilized.  This has
> > > > > > > > > > > > the effect of lowering the effective committed
> > > > > > > > > > information rate even
> > > > > > > > > > > > more.  This is one of the primary reasons that
> > experienced
> > > > > > > > > > > WAN networking
> > > > > > > > > > > > architects design IP networks to run as a nominal
30%
> > > > > > > > > > > utilization.  (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > remember reading something by David Boggs about ~30%
> > > > > > > > > > > utilization being the
> > > > > > > > > > > > effective performance ceiling of congestion domain
> > > > > > > > > > > networks.  I turns out
> > > > > > > > > > > > that he knew what he was talking about.)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The current defined X.86/OLT does make use of
"pause"
> > > > > > > > > > > functionality, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > will allow an ONU at one end of an end to end link
> > "pause"
> > > > > > > > > > > the ONU at the
> > > > > > > > > > > > other end.  By properly use of active flow control,
> > > > > > > > the service
> > > > > > > > > > > > communications link can perform as a non-congestion
> > domain
> > > > > > > > > > > link.  With
> > > > > > > > > > > > properly configured operands at the ONUs, this would
be
> > > > > > > > > > > highly reliable at
> > > > > > > > > > > > the cost of lower predetermined bandwidth
> > > > > > > > utilization, but without
> > > > > > > > > > > > retransmissions.  In experiments performed in the
> > > > > > 1998-2000
> > > > > > > > > > > time frame,
> > > > > > > > > > > > effective utilization was found to be a direct ratio
of
> > > > > > > > > > > link/circuit speed
> > > > > > > > > > > > to distance (I am having to write this from memory
> > because
> > > > > > > > > > > I no longer have
> > > > > > > > > > > > access to the data.)  Properly configured use of
active
> > > > > > > > > > > flow control can
> > > > > > > > > > > > allow architecture designs with much higher
effective
> > > > > > > > > > > bandwidth utilization
> > > > > > > > > > > > than 30%.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Roy Bynum
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:15 PM 2/18/2003 -0500, Siamack Ayandeh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Ben,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Please see my comments interleaved.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Regards, Siamack
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Ben Brown wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Siamack,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This comment is way off track of the original
> > > > > > > > question but I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel a need to ask this question. That's why
> > > > > > I changed the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > subject. I'll even redraw the network so that
> > > > > > > > we're all using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same context.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ONU1 ------ OLT1/GFP -------------------
GFP/OLT2
> > > > > > > > ------ ONU2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >     Ethernet                SONET
> > > > > >    Ethernet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are Pause frames used on the Ethernet links?
The
> > > > > > > > > > ONU should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > never be allowed to Pause the OLT as that would
> > > > > > > > back-pressure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the entire WAN. Since the WAN doesn't support
> > > > > > > > back-pressure,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > packets over the SONET link that exceed the
OLT's
> > > > > > > > > > egress buffers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would wind up being dropped at the OLT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >That's basically what I said "OLT can simply buffer
and
> > > > > > > > > > > subsequently drop
> > > > > > > > > > > > >packets."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The OLT could Pause the ONU but for what reason?
The
> > > > > > > > > > only reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I can think of would be to enforce the
ONU's
> > > > > > > > > > SLA. The point
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of putting an SLA in place is to enforce some
set
> > > > > > > > of rules,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > usually having to do with the minimum and
maximum
> > > > > > > > throughput
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > guaranteed at the OLT for the ONU. The reason an
> > > > > > > > SLA needs to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be in place is because each side doesn't
> > > > > > really trust the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other's "handshake" and a legal document of
sorts
> > > > > > > > is needed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, if neither side "trusts" the other, why
> > > > > > do you rely on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pause frames to enforce the SLA? If the ONU will
> > > > > > > > attempt to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use as much bandwidth as possible, it will
> > > > > > likely do so by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignoring the Pause frames from the OLT. This
> > > > > > > > means that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only way the OLT can truly enforce the SLA is to
> > > > > > > > be able to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > discard the frames that exceed the bandwidth
> > > > > > agreed to in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the SLA. If the OLT is capable of this, why even
> > > > > > > > bother with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pause frames?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >You forget two things:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >1. The bursty nature of traffic and the fact that
> > peak is
> > > > > > > > > > > greater than the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >committed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >rate of service
> > > > > > > > > > > > >2. That networks by definition protect
> > > > > > themselves i.e. can
> > > > > > > > > > > not rely on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >subscriber
> > > > > > > > > > > > >alone
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >If the subscriber exceeds its SLA then yes, frames
would
> > > > > > > > > > > be dropped. But
> > > > > > > > > > > > >if it's just
> > > > > > > > > > > > >a burst, i.e. on average the subscriber is in
compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > then buffering
> > > > > > > > > > > > >and Pause
> > > > > > > > > > > > >should do the job.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for being long winded but I'm trying to
> > > > > > > > make a logical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > argument. What assumptions did I make that
> > > > > > aren't valid?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Siamack Ayandeh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shahram,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be helpful to this discussion if you
> > > > > > > > > > > indicate what you had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in mind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with regard to OAM frames so one can think of
a
> > > > > > > > pragmatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > answer.  For example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if you are worried about Pause frames:  In
this
> > case
> > > > > > > > > > > the SONET/SDH
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (OLT1-OLT2)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is often the bottleneck link. So Pause is
> > > > > > used on the
> > > > > > > > > > > local link to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > protect the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OLT-1/2 buffers. If the egress ONU back
> > > > > > pressures the
> > > > > > > > > > > network, then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > OLT can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simply buffer and subsequently drop packets.
> > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise fairly large
> > > > > > > > > > > > > buffers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would be required to absorb the round trip
time of
> > > > > > > > > > > the wide area.  If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about it as a two port bridge, again Pause is
not
> > > > > > > > > > > propagated over the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > area. If you look at various IETF
> > > > > > Pseudowire flavors,
> > > > > > > > > > > again following
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the lead
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of IEEE, Pause is not propagated over the wide
> > area.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Siamack
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To further enrich the information that
> > > > > > you provided
> > > > > > > > > > > below....
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 802.3 has a long, well established
> > > > > > tradition of not
> > > > > > > > > > > supporting media
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > converters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be my opinion that any
> > > > > > "features" designed
> > > > > > > > > > > to specifically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > media converters were out of scope unless
> > > > > > they were
> > > > > > > > > > > specifically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the PAR.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Geoff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 01:05 AM 2/12/2003 -0500, Matt Squire
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >My 2 cents.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If there is a MAC layer in the ONU, then
OAM
> > > > > > > > > > > terminates there.  If a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >vendor builds something without a MAC
layer,
> > then
> > > > > > > > > > > it doesn't terminate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >there.  If you put MACs in your ONU,
> > > > > > you're really
> > > > > > > > > > > building something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >akin to a 2-port bridge (likely with STP
> > disabled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > permanently).  If you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >don't, then its more along the lines of a
media
> > > > > > > > > > > converter.  Both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > models
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >can work.  Both models can interoperate.
> > > > > >  So do it
> > > > > > > > > > > anyway you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > want, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >maybe the market will agree with you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- Matt
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Shahram Davari wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Roy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since EOS is a private line service, It
seems
> > > > > > > > > > > that you agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Chak that for the EOS it seems from
> > > > > > > > > > > architectural point of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > view the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OAM MAC frames should not be terminated at
> > OLTs.
> > > > > > > > > > > Is that correct?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Shahram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Roy Bynum
> > > > > > [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:26
PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Chau, Chak;
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [EFM] Question regarding
> > OAM in
> > > > > > > > > > > 802.3ah D1.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chak,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depending on the service definition
and who
> > > > > > > > > > > owns the service
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > facilities,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > end to end OAM functionality would not
> > > > > > > > necessarily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > available.  In all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > packet services, the service provider
would
> > > > > > > > > > > own at least a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > portion, if not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all of the communications facilities.
The
> > > > > > > > > > > OAM functionality
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would then be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the use of the service provider,
> > not the
> > > > > > > > > > > customer.  Only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a Leased
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Circuit type of service (also referred
> > to as
> > > > > > > > > > > "Private Line")
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would end to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > end, OLT1 to OLT2 OAM functionality
exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > For all other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > types of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > services, the OAM for Link 1 would
> > > > > > not be the
> > > > > > > > > > > OAM for Link 2.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Other than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a Leased Circuit service, the
services
> > > > > > > > > > > are defined to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alter, filter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or drop customer originated
> > > > > > frames/packets in
> > > > > > > > > > > one way or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another, including
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the OAM frames.  This is the gist
> > > > > > of the work
> > > > > > > > > > > that is being
> > > > > > > > > > > > > done by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SG15/Q.10 under E.Ethna.  Other than
with a
> > > > > > > > > > > Leased Circuit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > service, true
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "transparency" does not exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Roy Bynum
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:15 AM 2/11/2003 -0600, Chau,
> > > > > > Chak wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hi David and All,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I though for a PtP application the
OAMPDUs
> > > > > > > > > > > message should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transparent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >form OLT1 to OLT2.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Or else, this will defeat the purpose
of
> > > > > > > > > > > PtP, i.e., no L2 frame
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >processing. Which means that OAM for
Link1
> > > > > > > > > > > can be OAM for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Link2, is that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >correct?  This topic may be
> > > > > > reviewed outside
> > > > > > > > > > > of EFM if prefered.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Kind Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Chak
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Chak Chau
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >FUJITSU, Transmission Development
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Phone: (972) 479-2795
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >chak.chau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >chakavuth.chau@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: David Martin
> > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 2:59
PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Subject: RE: [EFM] Question
> > > > > > regarding OAM in
> > > > > > > > > > > 802.3ah D1.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Shahram,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Agreed, the EoS (e.g. GFP-F) mapping
> > > > > > > > is a simple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > port-to-port mapping and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >doesn't include the full MAC sublayer
> > > > > > > > > > > processing (i.e. only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > terminates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >IPG, preamble, SFD). Inspecting the
MAC DA
> > > > > > > > > > > and filtering off
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EFM OAMPDUs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >and processing them is required by
the
> > > > > > > > > > > network application,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Ethernet link / PHY to which they
apply is
> > > > > > > > > > > terminated. OAM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for link 1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >cannot be mixed with OAM for link 2
on the
> > > > > > > > > > > other side of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provider's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >network.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >ONU1 --------------
> > > > > > > > > > > OLT1/GFP------------------ GFP/OLT2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ ONU2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >           Ethernet
> > > > > >       SONET
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >       Ethernet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >It might be more appropriate to
continue
> > > > > > > > > > > this privately, or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the Q.12/15
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >reflector.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >...Dave
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >David W. Martin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Nortel Networks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
><mailto:dwmartin@xxxxxxxx>dwmartin@ieee
> > .org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >+1 613 765-2901 (esn 395)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Shahram Davari
> > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:Shahram_Davari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 3:16
PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >To: Martin, David [SKY:QW10:EXCH];
> > > > > > > > > > > stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Subject: RE: [EFM] Question
> > > > > > regarding OAM in
> > > > > > > > > > > 802.3ah D1.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >David,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I like to agree with you, but from
> > layering
> > > > > > > > > > > architectural
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > point of view,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >the EOS box does not have to
implement MAC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >layer (i.e., do any MAC lookup),
rather a
> > > > > > > > > > > P-2-P EOS is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kind of port
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >transport in which all traffic coming
form
> > > > > > > > > > > an Ethernet port
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are send over
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >a specific SONET channel.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Please see further comments in-line:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-Shahram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: David Martin
> > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 3:00
PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Subject: RE: [EFM] Question
> > > > > > regarding OAM in
> > > > > > > > > > > 802.3ah D1.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Shahram,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >This question is somewhat out of
scope wrt
> > > > > > > > > > > EFM, but the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > answer is yes, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >EFM OAMPDU flow must be terminated at
the
> > > > > > > > > > > Provider Edge.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >would flow through the provider's
SONET
> > > > > > > > > > > network and get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mixed in with a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >separate EFM OAMPDU flow at the far
end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >SD=> Which separate OAMPDU flow?
> > > > > > do you mean
> > > > > > > > > > > from ONU2 to OLT2?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Note that you have the terms ONU /
> > > > > > > > OLT reversed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >So the ONU is the customer side?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >This "filter function" is being
defined in
> > > > > > > > > > > the ITU-T SG15 /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q.12 work in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >draft G.ethna (was G.etna) and in the
> > > > > > > > OIF UNI v2.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks I will have a look.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The PE-PE, or SONET portion is not an
EFM
> > > > > > > > > > > link, but rather a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SONET path,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >which has its own OAM (i.e. POH).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Agree.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >...Dave
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >David W. Martin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Nortel Networks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
><mailto:dwmartin@xxxxxxxx>dwmartin@ieee
> > .org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >+1 613 765-2901 (esn 395)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Shahram Davari
> > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:Shahram_Davari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 2:13
PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Subject: [EFM] Question regarding OAM
in
> > > > > > > > > > 802.3ah D1.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >802.3ah section 57 says that the
> > > > > > OAM defined
> > > > > > > > > > > is for single
> > > > > > > > > > > > > link (or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >emulated link), and should not be
> > forwarded
> > > > > > > > > > > by bridges/switches.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >My question is, in case of Ethernet
over
> > > > > > > > > > > SONET transport
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (GFP + Virtual
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >concatenation), should the OAMPDU be
> > > > > > > > > > > terminated at the EOS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > device or it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >should be transparently transported?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Consider this example:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >OLT1 -------------- ONU
> > > > > > > > 1------------------ ONU 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ OLT 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >           Ethernet
SONET
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ethernet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Assume OLT1 and OLT2 are the customer
> > > > > > > > > > > equipments and ONU1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and ONU2 are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >provider
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >transport equipments that
> > > > > > transport Ethernet
> > > > > > > > > > > over SONET (but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't do any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >switching/bridging).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In this case should ONU1 terminate
OAMPDUs
> > > > > > > > > > > from OLT1 or it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should sent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >them transparently to OLT2?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In other words is OLT1--ONU1
considered a
> > > > > > > > > > > single link? what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about ONU1 to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >ONU2, is this also a link?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks in advance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Shahram Davari
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Senior Product Research Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >R&D Research Ottawa
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >PMC-Sierra, Inc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Phone: (613) 271-4018
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Fax:   (613) 271-6468
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Benjamin Brown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > AMCC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 200 Minuteman Rd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Floor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andover, MA 01810
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 978-247-8022 - Work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 603-491-0296 - Cell
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 978-247-0024 - Fax
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 603-798-4115 - Home Office/Fax
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bbrown@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > > > Benjamin Brown
> > > > > > AMCC
> > > > > > 200 Minuteman Rd
> > > > > > 3rd Floor
> > > > > > Andover, MA 01810
> > > > > > 978-247-8022 - Work
> > > > > > 603-491-0296 - Cell
> > > > > > 978-247-0024 - Fax
> > > > > > 603-798-4115 - Home Office/Fax
> > > > > > bbrown@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >-----------------------------------------
> > > >Benjamin Brown
> > > >AMCC
> > > >200 Minuteman Rd
> > > >3rd Floor
> > > >Andover, MA 01810
> > > >978-247-8022 - Work
> > > >603-491-0296 - Cell
> > > >978-247-0024 - Fax
> > > >603-798-4115 - Home Office/Fax
> > > >bbrown@xxxxxxxx
> > > >-----------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >--
> >-----------------------------------------
> >Benjamin Brown
> >AMCC
> >200 Minuteman Rd
> >3rd Floor
> >Andover, MA 01810
> >978-247-8022 - Work
> >603-491-0296 - Cell
> >978-247-0024 - Fax
> >603-798-4115 - Home Office/Fax
> >bbrown@xxxxxxxx
> >-----------------------------------------
>