RE: [EFM-OAM] Notes from yesterday's call
It will be hard to convince network managers to use a something that they know to be unreliable.
But, there are two kinds of unreliability: unreliable communication (acceptable if rare), unreliable information (absolutely unacceptable). Or, I think that we can sell the fact that some information might not "make it through." But, that which does get through must be known good. A related point is that with redundant communication (to increase the probability that information does "make it through"), there can be no case where the redundancy confuses the information recipient.
jonathan
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Matt Squire [mailto:mattsquire@acm.org]
| Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:28 AM
| To: Brian Arnold
| Cc: Matt Squire; stds-802-3-efm-oam@ieee.org
| Subject: Re: [EFM-OAM] Notes from yesterday's call
|
|
|
|
| >>
| >> Events. Lots of discussion on the events. First, we
| decided we need
| >> to have counters for the number of events, not just for
| the number of
| >> event PDUs (each PDU can contain multiple events of
| different types).
| >> Second, are unconfortable with the current C30 handling
| for events,
| >> where the latest received event info is an attribute.
| Given that this
| >> information can change multiple times per second, its
| quite possible
| >> that the changes would be missed. So it was suggested
| that instead of
| >> keeping the latest PDU info, we should only keep counters. Seemed
| >> like people wanted to think a little bit about that one.
| >
| >
| > Did anyone bring up Jonathon Thatcher's parallel counter
| idea (keeps a
| > running count, overflowing) from his comments on D1.3?
| Discussion was
| > on the reflector in late February 2003. Seems that could
| be a way to
| > maintain an accurate total count if we think we might miss
| an update,
| > but maybe I'm misinterpreting the concern above?
| >
| >
|
| The suggestion was to add counters. I forget Jonathan's
| exact previous
| comment, but the point brought up on the call was that we
| cannot expect
| to reliably pass up the content of all events though Clause30. Given
| that they're unreliable, shouldn't we have a counter (in addition or
| instead)? Since the method is unreliable, should we have it at all?
|
| - Matt
|
|
|