RE: Please help to clarify some things!
Roy,
I'm somewhat confused by your use of the term "out of band". To me, out of
band means a separate comm infrastructure, i.e. a separate cable. You seem
to use the term to indicate management outside of the carried data, i.e.
management info in the header bits. Am I missing something?
If it is in the same bit stream, but in the header as opposed to the data
portion, what is the advantage?
Walt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 1999 4:01 PM
> To: mick@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'HSSG'
> Subject: Re: Please help to clarify some things!
>
>
>
> Mick,
>
> I am not in any way suggesting a change in the way that IP based data
> communications systems change the way that they do network
> management. I am
> stating that it will not do for the carrier transmissions
> systems. Please do
> not confuse the separate issues.
>
> Customer Ethernet switches at either end of a WAN path will
> still use the SNMP
> network management that is so common. It may be that some
> transmission
> equipment vendors may even be convinced to provide some SNMP
> visibility at the
> 10GbE interface on the long haul transmission line terminating or DWDM
> equipment.
>
> The common service carriers will want to have something other
> than SNMP
> available for the equipment that they own, and the element management
> communications for that equipment will be carried out of
> band. This is a
> totally separate issue from the SNMP management of Ethernet switches.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> MCI WorldCom
>
>
> Mick Seaman wrote:
>
> > Roy, I agree that standards that have been put in place by the
> > ITU/T1/BellCore people differ from those in the IP data
> world. I strongly
> > disagree that the IP data world does not provide an
> adequate framework for
> > providing commercial data services that the enterprises
> that use them would
> > regard as mission critical. So from my point of view I can
> fully accept that
> > a difference exists as a fact but I am not in the least motivated to
> > accomodate this difference by wrecking the very successful
> foundation that
> > we have in the Ethernet world, nothing that has been said
> convinces me that
> > the difference represents a necessity for change on our part.
> >
> > Mick
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
> Of Roy Bynum
> > Sent: Saturday, September 11, 1999 2:06 PM
> > To: mick@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: 'HSSG'
> > Subject: Re: Please help to clarify some things!
> >
> > Mick,
> >
> > I am not complaining about unreliable network management for IP data
> > services.
> > I was writing about a requirement as part of the
> ITU/T1/BellCore standards
> > that
> > the network management messaging communications for
> transmission systems be
> > fully reliable. This is something that IP data people
> have not had to deal
> > with. It comes down to a simple distinction between TCP
> based messaging and
> > UDP
> > based messaging. It involves the standards for out of band network
> > management
> > on commercial transmission systems instead of the inband
> network management
> > standard that is used on IP based data systems. I have
> worked on both types
> > of
> > systems and services for years. There is a difference. I have been
> > attempting
> > to get the IP data people to realize that the standards
> that are in place
> > for
> > commercial transmission systems and services are different
> than those for IP
> > based data systems.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
> > MCI WorldCom
> >
>