|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Hi all to those attended April 11 ad hoc.
So I moved on to looking at what may satisfy my concern.
And if you are still on disagreeing with my concern, this message would not be relevant to you.
1. RX good while TX with COL. And while you are at it, RX [from other nodes, so more of "full-duplex" like operation] while TX with or without COL. <== CL4 and CL2 is COMPLETELY consistent with this, BUT my assertion is that this is not guaranteed (understatement) with broad set of installed base.
Discussion: If we could distinguish this CSMA/CD 10 Mbps *SYSTEM* that is to be used with PLCA from the legacy CSMA/CD 10 Mbps *SYSTEM*, clearly enough, then we don't have any confusion WRT to PLCA PHY working with systems with old MAC. "System" is the keyword here, not "MAC". EPON has the respective MAC control sublayer and other sublayers, and when you see those, you know you need to augment your system with Ethernet MAC with new capabilities. So the suggestion is to create new MAC parameter entry associated with this PLCA-like [set of] PHYs that has random back-off limit of 1, so MAC will retry up to 16 times (so hard limit of 16 nodes in PLCA network) and always select between 0 and 1. This preserves the 1) intent of PLCA, which also eliminates capture effect 2) does not change the MAC (all nicely parameterized already.)
Oh, and we need to fix the inconsistencies in the standard in 802.1AC -- maintenance request.
Alternatively, EPON-like optimization would work just as well, and I do not believe will be too complex, and all of the PLCA (TDMA with a master) objectives would be met and also provide clearer way to manage nodes AND provide additional access-priority related QoS.
And 3rd alternative would be to use 802.11 CSMA/CA access method with our PHY. The access method DOES work, has statistical access metrics well-studied, and mature. I do not recommend this -- too high implementation cost relative to Ethernet MAC and you get little in deterministic access. There may be other options.
The intent of this message is to
gather interests in the corrective next steps (i.e. MAC parameter
method). Let me know (reply), or let us know (reply-all). Thanks!
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1