RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
Barry,
Likewise, I don't find the argument that in-band can meet the critical SP
buying criteria very complelling either, but I am open to be convinced
otherwise. The last resort is to offer out-of-band back-up OAM via the PSTN
:-).
I just want to built products that SPs will be happy to buy and use.
Best regards
Bob Barrett
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of O'Mahony,
> Barry
> Sent: 28 September 2001 22:50
> To: 'stds-802-3-efm'
> Subject: RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
>
>
>
> Bob,
>
> And I was just trying to further the discussion as well.
>
> Personally, I don't have an opinion at this point as to what OAM
> needs to be
> side-band and what needs to be in-band. I just don't find the
> argument that
> it _must_ be side-band, in order to ensure that the entirety of
> the in-band
> channel is allocated to user data, to be very compelling.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Barry O'Mahony
> Intel Labs
> Hillsboro, OR, USA
> tel: +1(503)264-8579
> barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxx
> barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Barrett [mailto:bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 12:24 PM
> To: O'Mahony, Barry; 'stds-802-3-efm'
> Subject: RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
>
>
> Barry
>
> Very good points.
>
> What I was trying to do by raising this issue was get a debate
> going, and I
> seem to have achieved that.
>
> We Brits are renown for compromise, and what EFM needs (imho) is a
> compromise from the carrier types on the rigid requirement that _all_ OAM
> must be side band, and a compromise from the LAN types that _none_ of the
> OAM functions need to be side band.
>
> Again - imho - some of the basic parameters need to be side band, however,
> most of the detailed config. parameters should be in-band and don't fall
> within the scope of EFM (most equipment is implemented like this
> already via
> SNMP, why re-invent the wheel ?).
>
> The un-invented wheel is carrier class PHY layer management for
> EFM, really
> basic stuff like monitoring the interface condition at the PHY
> layer within
> the CPE, specifically for optical p2p and p2mp EFM.
>
> Note - we don't need to compromise the quick to market and low cost
> 'leverage the silicon' argument by taking both the in-band and
> the side-band
> approach in p2p, and that is my main focus. Side band might mean tweaks to
> the MAC PHY boundary in a few ASICs,
>
> .....but then I don't use ASICs :-).
>
> I agree that all the detailed isochronous circuit stuff is vendor specific
> or within ietf territory, definitely not 802.3.
>
> Thank you
>
> Bob Barrett
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of O'Mahony,
> > Barry
> > Sent: 28 September 2001 01:23
> > To: 'stds-802-3-efm'
> > Subject: RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
> >
> >
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > 999.9 Mbps is within 100 ppm of 1 Gbps. Does the delivered bit
> > rate need to
> > be more precise than that? Suppose the OAM overhead is lower,
> such as the
> > 10K mentioned below, is that still too much?
> >
> > It seems to me that, if the requirement is to provide customers with the
> > type of isochronous-type of service they can get from T1, DS[x],
> > or ATM-type
> > interfaces, with bit throughput guaranteed and drived from some
> precision
> > clock hierarchy, then perhaps Ethernet is not the best choice
> to meet this
> > requirement.
> >
> > Ethernet instead has tended to talk about "Classes" of networks that
> > reference the raw bitrate, but don't really guarantee precise
> throughput,
> > right?
> >
> > I would think that if a service was being sold as providing "1000BASE-x
> > performance", most customers would comprehend what that was like. And
> > certainly perceive it as a very attractive offering. Perhaps provisions
> > could be made in the EFM specs. to add isochronous-type
> > guarantees, but one
> > needs to ask whether doing so would compromise the simplicity and
> > flexibility that makes Ethernet so attractive for EFM in the
> first place.
> > I'm just worried about the dangers of "feature creep".
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Barry O'Mahony
> > Intel Architecture Labs
> > Hillsboro, OR, USA
> > tel: +1(503)264-8579
> > barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxx
> > barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Barrett [mailto:bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 4:11 PM
> > To: Harry Hvostov; fmenard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Denton Gentry'
> > Cc: 'stds-802-3-efm'
> > Subject: RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
> >
> >
> >
> > Harry et al
> >
> > yup, all the IP 'stuff' is payload as far as the demarcation point is
> > concerned.
> >
> > The demarc is a PHY that carries packets at the end of the day.
> > Some demarcs
> > may be buried inside a bigger system, however, the standard must
> > also cater
> > for stand alone demarc devices. My expectation as a user would
> be that at
> > the demarc the bandwidth was the same capacity as my enterprise
> > MAC and PHY
> > of the same spec.
> >
> > Would I miss 10k per second on a 1GE, I doubt it.
> >
> > Would my test gear pick it up on an end to end private circuit
> > test, I don't
> > know, anyone on the reflector tried this?
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Harry Hvostov [mailto:HHvostov@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: 27 September 2001 17:41
> > > To: 'fmenard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Denton Gentry';
> > > bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: 'stds-802-3-efm'
> > > Subject: RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
> > >
> > >
> > > And how about the ICMP and IGMP traffic from the same CPE devices?
> > >
> > > Harry
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Francois Menard [mailto:fmenard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 6:05 AM
> > > To: 'Denton Gentry'; bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: 'stds-802-3-efm'
> > > Subject: RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Or for that matter, what about ARP traffic unsolicited from my CPE
> > > devices ?
> > >
> > > -=Francois=-
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Denton
> > > Gentry
> > > Sent: September 26, 2001 3:12 PM
> > > To: bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: stds-802-3-efm
> > > Subject: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Service providers have a desire to offer a full 1GE service and not
> > > > use any of it's bandwidth for OAM. The rule of conservation of
> > > > bandwidth means the OAM needs to go somewhere other then in the
> > > > bandwidth reserved for the 1GE payload. I take it as read that 100%
> > > > utilisation of a 1GE is unlikely, but that is not the
> point. The point
> > >
> > > > is that service providers want to offer 1GE service period, not a
> > > > 999.9Mbit service.
> > >
> > > Does the existence of the Mac Control PAUSE frame therefore make
> > > Ethernet unsuitable for service providers?
> > >
> > > Denton Gentry
> > > Dominet Systems