RE: [EFM] [EFM-OAM] OAM Transport Proposal
Geoff,
These are the same issues that I brought up in the baseline break out
group. I was over ruled by the predominately OAMiP participation in that
group. That is the reason that I withdrew my support of the baseline
proposal being presented at the EFMA meeting.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 12:47 PM 4/20/2002 -0700, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>Roy-
>
>I have not examined the proposal.
>It sounds like the proposal to send a preamble without a frame would either:
> 1) Violate the minimum frame size of Ethernet
> or
> 2) Violate the frame format requirements of Ethernet
>My questions would then be:
> Why do the proposers think that this "would be Ethernet?"
> How do they expect to get it approved in 802.3
> How do they expect these entities to show up on Ethernet test
> equipment?
> Have they checked it against the 5 Criteria lately?
>
>Geoff
>
>
>At 08:38 AM 4/20/02 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:
>
>>Matt,
>>
>>I had to withdraw my support of this baseline proposal. The people that
>>were in your breakout group originally were replaced by individuals that
>>had less of a neutral agenda. While this might be a natural evaluation,
>>I found the group diverting from its original direction.
>>
>>What forced me to withdraw was the re-insertion in the baseline proposal
>>of the new frame type shown in slide 10 as a stand alone preamble with no
>>Ethernet frame behind it. This has not has very much discussion in the
>>EFM TF group as a whole, or the dot 3 voters. This functionality was not
>>part of the original functionality that the breakout group has originally
>>agreed on.
>>
>>Several people are saying that preamble will not work properly without
>>that non-Ethernet-frame preamble type frame. The alternative concept is
>>that the OAM frame will always be available to be sent, so there is never
>>a need to send a preamble without a frame.
>>
>>Also, the PHY ID was re-introduced in the P2P baseline OAM as well as the
>>P2MP, as shown in slide 9. The breakout group had originally agreed that
>>P2P would not support multiple network elements within the P2P link, and
>>so the PHY ID was specific to P2MP and should not be part of the basic
>>OAM baseline.
>>
>>I enjoyed working with the group that you originally invited to
>>participate. Thank you for the oportunity.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>Roy Bynum
>>
>>
>>I have the perception (I could be wrong) that more representation from
>>the "preamble" camp participated in developing the baseline. For example
>>HS was there while DG was not.
>>
>>At 02:58 PM 4/19/2002 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:
>>
>>>Kevin,
>>>
>>>I have a few questions:
>>>* OAM in VOC/eoc is not explained in the document. Is there a
>>>proposal that should be referenced?
>>>* Do these OAM protocols assume no repeaters? Is the OAM scheme
>>>designed to work in half-duplex?
>>>* Is there a specific OAM scheme that should be used for end-to-end
>>>(versus link-by-link) OAM messaging? Carrier class equipment has section,
>>>line and path, do we have something similar?
>>>* IEEE Std. 802.3z currently permits GbE fiber links to generate
>>>either 7 or 8 bytes of preamble. How does the OAM in preamble compensate
>>>for this?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Brad
>>>
>>>Brad Booth
>>>Intel Platform Networking Group - Austin
>>>bradley.booth@intel.com <mailto:bradley.booth@intel.com>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Kevin Daines
>>>[mailto:Kevin.Daines@worldwidepackets.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 4:01 PM
>>> To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
>>> Subject: [EFM] [EFM-OAM] OAM Transport Proposal
>>>
>>> << File: OAMtransport_041902.pdf >> All,
>>>
>>> A number of individuals have worked since the St. Louis
>>>Meeting in March on a compromise OAM Transport proposal. We are posting the
>>>proposal for review/comment from the larger 802.3ah Task Force.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kevin Daines
>>>