Re: Question about Link Fault Signalling
Ben,
I liked the idea of going from LF to RF to OK when the RS starts
receiving either RF's or Idles. This insures that "m" Idles will be
sent before enabling packets as the exist of RF is V(m).
Birdy, Thanks for putting it down so clearly.
Ben's suggest of a LF loop back to the LF state for completeness is a
good one. I would suggest we call the states LF and RF states a
different name than the event that causes the transitions, maybe LFRcvd
and RFRcvd. I'm not stuck on the names, mind you.
The transition from V to RF has RF(p). I would suggest RF(n) as a
better value. Fast entry in to an the error states with some protection
(limited I admit, but sufficient) against false entry sounds good
I suggest that [RF|I](p) and V(m) use the same subscript: [RF|I](m).
I think the value for n should be 2. I think the value for m (and p)
should be greater than 2. I could live with 2, but 4 "feels" better and
since we are recovering from an error condition, a couple of extra
"events" extra isn't a huge enough burden to worry about.
Steve Finch
"Ben Brown" <bbrown@xxxxxxxx> on 01/05/2001 05:44:47 AM
To: "802.3ae" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
cc:
Subject: Re: Question about Link Fault Signalling
Birdy,
Thanks for the picture! However, a few questions...
Why would we falsely report RF without ever detecting RF
as the transition from state LF to state RF depicts upon
the detection of IDLE. I might suggest some changes:
Change the transition from state LF to state RF by removing
the condition I.
Add a transition from state LF to state V on the condition
I (or would this be condition V?).
For completeness, I'd add a loop from state LF back to
itself on the condition LF.
Regards,
Ben
--
-----------------------------------------
Benjamin Brown
AMCC
2 Commerce Park West
Suite 104
Bedford NH 03110
603-641-9837 - Work
603-491-0296 - Cell
603-626-7455 - Fax
603-798-4115 - Home Office
bbrown@xxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------