RE: Ethernet over WANs
Roy:
This list has touched on the topic many times, so I don't want to bore
people by reiterating the issues. But very simply there are few vendors who
have any kind of interoperable OAM on the SONET "transport" side. I stress
the key word is "transport". On the other side of an ADM there is no
problem. We have worked with most of the major vendors and have yet to see
anything close to interoperability.
Bill
Bill St. Arnaud
Senior Director Network Projects
CANARIE
bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx
+1 613 785-0426
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: August 7, 1999 5:12 PM
> To: Bill.St.Arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Rohit Mittal; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Ethernet over WANs
>
>
> Bill,
>
> As part of the common carrier industry that uses SONET/SDH all of
> the time, and
> as a person that was involved with codifying the communications
> stack for Q3, I
> wonder where you get the idea that OAM has not been standardized
> within the
> SONET/SDH protocol? Have your ever heard of the H bytes, the B
> bytes, the K
> bytes, the Z bytes, etc. All of these are part of the OAM of the
> SONET/SDH
> protocol.
>
> For 10GbE, not all of the OAM bytes will be used within the interface
> processing, thus reducing the cost of processing compared to
> current SONET/SDH
> systems. As far as proprietary implementations of external
> management systems,
> have you ever heard of extended MIBs. There is little difference in the
> additional features offered by data switch vendors and the
> additional features
> offered by transmission vendors.
>
> Either you have been badly misinformed by some vendor somewhere, or do not
> understand the overall issues of network management within the carrier
> industry. There are carrier (SONET) network management software
> solutions that
> will span multiple vendors. A major one of those vendors is in Calgary,
> Canada. It can be compared to the carrier version of the SNMP
> network managers
> that are well known by the data networking industry.
>
> The specific of the minimum OAM features that are implemented has
> not entered
> the discuss yet. I personally do not think that it is time yet.
> Some of the
> OAM features that are in SONET/SDH do not exist in common data networking
> protocols, so many of the people that reading from this reflector
> are unfamiliar
> with them. To enter into that discussion now would very much confuse the
> issues.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> MCI WorldCom
>
> "Bill St. Arnaud" wrote:
>
> > Rohit:
> >
> > I think you will see 3 different approaches in the marketplace for
> > delivering 10GbE over the WAN:
> >
> > 1. 10GbE over SONET where a proprietary OAM is done at SONET layer
> > 2. 10Gbe over wavelengths where a proprietary OAM is done out
> of band in the
> > optical channel
> > 3. Native 10Gbe which would require some sort of new OAM protocol
> >
> > The question that has been asked as since no common standard has been
> > developed for OAM in SONET, is a "standard" OAM required for
> native 10GbE?
> >
> > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I recently subscribed to this list and was going through the archives
> > >
> > > Some people have mentioned about sending ethernet over MAN/WAN links.
> > > The question I have is Ethernet doesn't have OAM features of SONET.
> > > That is a critical feature for WANs (and not LANs)
> > > How is that handled for 10GbE? Can you make intellegent enough DWDM
> > > elements to handle that. Doesn't that by itself add overhead which is
> > > comparable to SONET overhead. If so, then why is there so much
> > > discussion
> > > as to replace SONET by 10GbE.
> >
> > >
> > > In packet over SONET, we use PPP which adds very little
> > > overhead. Can't we use the same format for 10GbE over SONET. In that
> > > case we can define the 10GbE standard without worrying about SONET .
> > > Just my 2c.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Rohit Mittal
> > > ~
> > >
>