RE: [EFM] RE: OAM functionals
Dan,
To a certain extent, you are right. In some ways you are wrong.
Upper layer applications can provide a very rich texture of management and
provisioning messaging. The question would be whether this messaging would
require insertion into the customer revenue traffic stream. This works for
low margin services such as the Internet. It does not work for high margin
services such as "Private Line".
There are a lot of vendors that are trying to redefine "Private Line". The
sad truth is that it is the customer of the service providers that define
what "Private Line" is. At present, and in the foreseeable future,
"Private Line" is a private, secure, fixed bandwidth facility, that is not
shared with other "customers". "Private Line" has the service provider
management out side of the customer's revenue traffic.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 08:17 PM 9/25/01 +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>I think that I understand the operational requirements. What is not
>clear is whether these need to be necessarily covered within the access
>edge OAM. E in EFM is still for Ethernet - do other access protocols
>provide for 'Facilities Alarms' within their remote OAM capabilities?
>Should we mandate CPE chassis management capabilities?
>
>Regards,
>
>Dan
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Faye Ly [mailto:faye@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 7:46 PM
> > To: Roy Bynum; ah_smith@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: stds-802-3-efm
> > Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: OAM functionals
> >
> >
> >
> > Roy,
> >
> > Does facility alarm include:
> >
> > 1. Chassis power supply status(in this case, CPE)
> > 2. Fan present/status
> >
> > Mechanical thing such as verifying if a box
> > is fully closed is hard to implement. Does
> > redundancy fault categorized as facility alarm
> > also? Thanks.
> >
> > -faye
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 7:32 AM
> > To: ah_smith@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: stds-802-3-efm
> > Subject: [EFM] RE: OAM functionals
> >
> >
> >
> > Andrew,
> >
> > These were not rhetorical questions. The issue of supporting far end
> > active systems, and possibly active intermediate systems at
> > "dark" sites
> >
> > has been a handicap for those service providers that are
> > currently using
> >
> > GbE for service delivery.
> >
> > One of the presenters at the January 2001 meeting, John Moore,
> > http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/jan01/moore_1_01_2001.pdf,
> made the
>comment that he had to do a truck roll just to verify that the box cover
>
>was closed on the active demark system on the side of the customer's
>house. This is the sort of thing that "Facilities Alarms" are for.
>There
>are a lot of other things that simple "alarms" are needed for. The
>group
>as a whole needs to learn more about these types of issues that exist in
>a
>service provider infrastructure, particularly at the very edge.
>
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>
>At 10:38 PM 9/24/01 -0700, Andrew Smith wrote:
> >Roy,
> >
> >Assuming those weren't rhetorical questions - all I know on these
>topics are
> >what I learnt from the presentation materials submitted so far to this
>group
> >so: no, no, no and no.
> >
> >Looking forward to learning more,
> >
> >Andrew Smith
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 5:49 PM
> >To: ah_smith@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >Cc: stds-802-3-efm
> >Subject: OAM functionals
> >
> >
> >Andrew,
> >
> >Lets start a new thread.
> >
> >I would like for others, perhaps you, to be able contribute to some of
>the
> >access edge OAM functional requirements.
> >
> >Do you know what "Facilities Alarms" are? Do you know what they are
>used
> >for? Do you know how they work? Do you know why they might be needed
>for
> >EFM?
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Roy Bynum