| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Glen, Unless I am missing something, why do not we use IEEE 802.1AB as the discovery protocol ?. Recall that IEEE 802.1AB-2009 allows using any unicast address and any multicast addresses besides the original one that was used in 2005 version. The multicast addresses does not need to have link-local scope. We can define a new TLV to carry the info in the config message. Hesham From: Glen Kramer [mailto:gkramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Dear Colleagues, At the last meeting, we have discussed the initial version of the UMT discovery protocol (v1) and produced an updated version (v2) as a result of this discussion (see
http://www.ieee1904.org/2/meeting_archive/2014/12/tf2_1412_kramer_3.pdf ) Attached here is version 3 (which is just a cleaned up version 2) with some additional questions that need to be clarified. Also, at the last meeting, I took an action item to “show a protocol diagram simplified for EPoC”.
The simplification would come from the fact that the Client-Side End Point (CSEP) and the management client are part of the same device (CNU or FCU), and the Server-Side End Point (SSEP) and UMT Domain Controller are part of the OLT. The second page of the attached document shows this simplified EPOC use case. Please, review and let us further discuss on the reflector. Glen |