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

RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven points




Roy,

Well, if you won't take the time to quantify the requirement, I think you'll
have a hard time convincing this committee to adopt what you propose.

Andrew Smith


-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@mindspring.com]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:19 PM
To: ah_smith@pacbell.net
Cc: stds-802-3-efm
Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven points


Andrew,

What amount of OAM bandwidth per user would a copper local loop at 2mbps
revenue bandwidth rate need?  How would having different services models
change that OAM bandwidth?  These are questions that can be "nit-picked" to
death.  This is very early in this process to trying to get to this level
of detail for each and every potential type of service and deployment
architecture model that can be imagined.  I can think of quite a few
variations myself, that I will not take time to enumerate here,  one, I
don't have the time, secondly, because I think the different vendors will
want to do that themselves.  I am attempting to find a reasonable answer
that will cover as many of the variations of services and topologies as
possible.  I am sorry that you do not seem to agree with that approach.

Thank you,
Roy Bynum

At 01:57 PM 9/24/01 -0700, Andrew Smith wrote:
>Roy,
>
>I'm still not clear whether you are arguing that the OAM rate should be
>proportional to the line rate (I think you said 0.1% in your slides) or
>whether you propose an absolute value(you write 1 Mbps below). I haven't
>seen any argument in support of the OAM needs increasing in proportion to
>the line rate. Terms like "very low" and "reasonable" are hard to judge and
>"tends to provide for a wide diversity of services and infrastructure
>topologies" sounds very nebulous: how about some hard data?
>
>Andrew Smith
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@mindspring.com]
>Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 12:36 PM
>To: ah_smith@pacbell.net
>Cc: stds-802-3-efm
>Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven points
>
>
>Andrew,
>
>OAM bandwidth can be very low for simple, single treaded services such as
>Internet access.  For diverse multiple services the OAM bandwidth needs to
>be relatively high.  If history is any guide, whatever we do, it will not
>be enough long term.  At present, what we should be looking for is a
>reasonable balance of OAM overhead to revenue bandwidth.  In my
>presentation http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/sep01/bynum_2_0901.pdf, I
>suggested an overhead bandwidth of about 1 Mbps for a revenue bandwidth of
>1Gbps.  I believe that to be a reasonable amount of OAM bandwidth.  It
>tends to provide for a wide diversity of services and infrastructure
>topologies.  Does it need to more than that?
>
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>
>At 06:59 PM 9/21/01 -0700, Andrew Smith wrote:
>
> >Roy,
> >
> >Well, you can't choose "all of the above": what do you think is the right
> >interval for your OAM needs and why? It wasn't meant as a rhetorical
> >question.
> >
> >Andrew Smith
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@mindspring.com]
> >Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 6:18 PM
> >To: ah_smith@pacbell.net
> >Cc: stds-802-3-efm
> >Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven points
> >
> >
> >Andrew,
> >
> >Yes to all of the below.  If by a "scheduler" you are referring to "every
x
> >'revenue whatever' an 'OAM whatever' is inserted regardless of whatever
is
> >happening and without effecting whatever is happening in the 'revenue
> >whatever' and the 'OAM whatever' is not effected by the 'revenue
>whatever'".
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Roy Bynum
> >
> >At 06:31 PM 9/21/01 -0700, Andrew Smith wrote:
> > >Roy,
> > >
> > >You're not being clear: when you say "constant", over what interval do
>you
> > >measure: one Frame? one Byte? one Bit? the time it takes for an
electron
>to
> > >jump from one atomic orbit to another? It doesn't matter which one of
>these
> > >you choose, you still need a *scheduler* to put the bits of your
message
>(I
> > >assume that your OAM messages are more than one bit long) onto the
>medium.
> > >
> > >Andrew Smith
> > >
> > >P.S. Please let me buy you lunch someday.
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@mindspring.com]
> > >Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 5:46 PM
> > >To: ah_smith@pacbell.net
> > >Cc: stds-802-3-efm
> > >Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven points
> > >
> > >
> > >Andrew,
> > >
> > >A "side band" is a constant bandwidth facility.  Most of what you are
> > >referring to only would apply to an in-band, "frame" based OAM.  It
does
> > >not apply to a "side band" OAM channel.
> > >
> > >Thank you,
> > >Roy Bynum
> > >
> > >At 05:53 PM 9/21/01 -0700, Andrew Smith wrote:
> > > >Roy,
> > > >
> > > >I think we're talking past each other here (see Tony's lunchtime
> >comment).
> > > >
> > > >Implementation of a "side-band" channel *requires* a scheduler and
> >queueing
> > > >of its own. The side-band method is the one that adds the unneeded
> > > >complexity by mandating an additional scheduler on top of the ones
used
> >by
> > > >higher layers that (in any reasonably designed piece of EFM gear)
will
> > > >already be present.
> > > >
> > > >I challenge this group to come up with appropriate dimensions for
such
>a
> > > >side-band channel - what peak or sustained bandwidth? what burst
>size? -
> > > >that does not cause EFM to become an evolutionary dead-end.
> > > >
> > > >Andrew Smith
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@mindspring.com]
> > > >Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 3:53 PM
> > > >To: ah_smith@pacbell.net; Tony Jeffree
> > > >Cc: stds-802-3-efm
> > > >Subject: RE: [EFM] OAM - Faye's seven points
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Andrew,
> > > >
> > > >What you are referring to in the need for "sort of token bucket
> > > >scheduler",  and "...want to allow the OAM "channel" an unfair
>advantage
> >in
> > > >the use of spare bandwidth too, implying some sort of priority in the
> > > >scheduler" would only apply if the OAM were "frame" based.  If the
OAM
> >were
> > > >a "side band", or "out-of-band" to the revenue traffic, the all of
that
> > > >complexity is unneeded.
> > > >
> > > >With an OAM "out-of-band" channel, the OAM bandwidth is predetermined
>by
> > > >the bandwidth of the "side band" data.  It would also not interfere
>with
> > > >the revenue bandwidth.
> > > >
> > > >Thank you,
> > > >Roy Bynum