RE: [EFM-Copper] discovery and adding pairs...
I agree as well
1) If n-pairs (say 4) are configured to build one link, and some of these
pairs drop (one pair fo example), at least the member-pairs of the link MUST
be allowed to join without restart.
2) I see no reason why it should not be possible to dynamically add or drop
pairs from a link. The PAF should be able to handle this easily.
For practical reasons, it is a pain, if a service provider has to cut the
service to upgrade to a higher speed (adding pairs). This is what we had
with leased lines. We must build now a better solution and at least as good
as IMA or MLPPP was.
I stongly suggest to add the missing parts.
Best regards
Peter Schelbert
-----Original Message-----
From: Towne, Jeffrey R (Jeff) [mailto:jrt@lucent.com]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:46 PM
To: 'Matt Squire'; stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
Cc: Barry O'Mahony (E-mail); Hugh Barrass (E-mail); Michael Beck (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [EFM-Copper] discovery and adding pairs...
I agree.
Most "inverse multiplex" schemes can accomodate adding
and/or removing members without restarting the aggregate link. Why invent a
new one that does not have this capability?
Jeff Towne
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Squire [mailto:MSquire@hatterasnetworks.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 9:53 PM
To: stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
Cc: Barry O'Mahony (E-mail); Hugh Barrass (E-mail); Michael Beck
(E-mail)
Subject: [EFM-Copper] discovery and adding pairs...
One of my TR comments against D2.1 (#302) asked for a
clarification about how the discovery process can add loops
to an up and running EFM copper interface (10PASS/2BASE). I
thought I just misunderstood the discovery process because
it did not seem possible to add a loop to 10PASS/2BASE port
that is already operational. The response to the comment is
that I was correct and that its not possible.
Does anyone else find it unacceptable to have to take down
all pairs to "re-discover" which pairs can be included in an
aggregate? IMHO, this is a bizarre and unobtainable
restriction. Pairs, in general, don't come up at the same
time. They can go away and come back. The discovery process
we have in place does not take that into account.
Am I out in left field? Do we think this idea of having all
ports initializing at the same time is at all feasible?
- Matt