| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear ANWG members, As a reminder, at the last meeting, several people had taken the following action items (see http://www.ieee1904.org/2/meeting_archive/2014/06/tf2_1406_closing.pdf): ·
Glen: Produce a figure showing single UMC domain spanning multiple L2 domains ·
Marek: Proposal for draft structure (main parts) ·
Curtis and Mark: EPOC management of CNU via FCU ·
Curtis and Mark: Management of demark device
–
Connected to ONU/CNU
–
Can be L2 only or L2/L3 ·
Hesham: L2 tunneling to support SDN and virtualization of ONUs and middle boxes (FCU, DPU, CMC)
–
Include how OpenFlow protocol maps to UMC message format. Other contributions that can lead to baseline proposals are welcome as well. Of particular importance at this time are contributions on the following topics: 1)
Types of management payloads that need to be supported 2)
Requirements for the UMT
a.
Max. Bandwidth or frame rate
b.
Latency bounds
c.
Reliability 3)
UMT discovery protocol
a.
Server-initiated vs. client-initiated If you plan a contribution on any of these or other topics, please submit it using the online submission form at
http://www.ieee1904.org/2/private/tf2_presentproc.shtml
Thank you, Glen |