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

Re: [HSSG] fault signalling

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve) wrote:

Thanks for your feedback, Stephen.

> Without looking at what it will cost, some of these ideas seem
> appealing. But Ethernet hasn't historically built in capabilities to
> support particular operating environments such as the one you describe
> that would add cost across the board.

How do you categorize autoneg in this aspect? Since it actually does 
announce capabilities and also tells somewhat the state of the other end, 
and as far as I understand, resides on the link layer?

If we could include a generic communication link that could send data 
without the link being up, then this could be extended in the future by 
vendors that decide to support it (I do not propose to make optical 
monitoring a requirement in the standard, I propose to make it at all 
possible for a vendor to support it within the standard).

End customers as me are putting DOM (or equivalent optical monitoring) 
into RFQs as "should" requirements for higher end platforms nowadays, and 
if a vendor added the capability I described in earlier email, that vendor 
would definately have a big operational plus in an RFQ response due to the 
operational savings of such capabilities.

It really would sadden me if we missed this opportunity to add a 
communication channel to the standard now that could be used in the future 
for all kinds of communication, perhaps something we can't even think of 

I am an end user, I do not know exactly how to implement this, I'm just 
saying that it would be extremely useful for us to have this capability.

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: