Re: [EFM] RE: OAM Transport Proposal
Roy,
That is the question. If the management entity has to be involved, then the
preamble won't provide an advantage over frames. If the management entity
is not involved, the preamble can be more responsive.
Cheers,
Brad
______________________
Sent from my Blackberry...
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Booth, Bradley <bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx>; 'mattsquire@xxxxxxx'
<mattsquire@xxxxxxx>
CC: 'stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org' <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>
Sent: Tue Apr 23 07:43:58 2002
Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: OAM Transport Proposal
Brad,
If I understand you correctly, given that there will always be additional
latency translating the MDIO/MDC frames into preamble information, and then
send the preamble, even without a standard frame, it will provide any
advantage in greater responsiveness than OAMiF. If that is the case, then
there is no advantage to OAMiP under any circumstances. If that is the
case, why include it even as optional?
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 06:59 AM 4/23/2002 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:
>Matt,
>
>A management frame I described is that defined in Clause 22 as a MDIO/MDC
>communication. If the preamble is filtered by the PHY, then there has to
be
>some way to pass this preamble OAM information to the management entity.
In
>802.3, this is done via MDIO/MDC (or management frames). A management
frame
>takes over 25 us to be passed across the MDIO/MDC interface. Unless the
>intention is to have the PHY handle all OAM in preamble without management
>entity intervention, then the response to the OAM in preamble will be
>hampered by the MDIO/MDC interface.
>
>Cheers,
>Brad
>
>______________________
>Sent from my Blackberry...