|
Devendra, it may be a bit early for discussions on
specific PHY layers (although I would expect the July meeting to include such
sessions). It would be my hope that such sessions are scheduled in as
aspiring section editors make presentations of their first drafts showing the
section structure and some of the early detail.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance President, LAN
Connect Consultants 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC
27615 Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919
810-7816 email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx
Fax: 720 222-0900
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 11:31
AM
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Phy Layer
question
Robert,
Although I mentioned the informative section for
example PHYs, I like your suggestion of specifying
a
few PHY interfaces through normative sections. Is there an item on agenda for
discussing various
such
PHYs ?
Regards,
Devendra Tripathi
VidyaWeb, Inc
90 Great
Oaks Blvd #206
San Jose, Ca 95119
Tel: (408)226-6800,
Direct:
(408)363-2375
Fax: (408)226-6862
Devendra, I have a very different view of what
"PHY agnostic means.
I believe that we must design the MAC to be
able to work without depending on any specific PHY implementation.
However, as we write the standard, we must
precisely specify how we will operate with whichever PHY layers we support
with that release of the standard. There will be
normative sections (that is to say, sections that specify what SHALL be
done) that describe how we will work with any particular PHY. I expect
that we will need one editor for each PHY that the standard will support,
and these sections will contain significant detail.
As an example, look at the 100 Mbit/s Token
Ring standard which uses the Ethernet signaling layer.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance President,
LAN Connect Consultants 7105 Leveret Circle
Raleigh, NC 27615 Phone: 919 848-6773
Mobile: 919 810-7816 email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx
Fax: 720 222-0900
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 3:22
PM
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Phy Layer
question
My understanding of saying PHY agnostic is that
we specify the interface in logical way (request,
indication) with may be one example (likely
Ethernet) PHY as informative annex.
Regards,
Devendra Tripathi
VidyaWeb, Inc
90
Great Oaks Blvd #206
San Jose, Ca 95119
Tel:
(408)226-6800,
Direct: (408)363-2375
Fax: (408)226-6862
I am new to the group. I have been
reading up the presentations. I have a simple
question.
We are saying .17 will be layer 1
agnostic. However, (if sonet is the phy used) sonet is aware of
the ring structure - for APS, etc.
Will the .17 specify how a sonet framer should
be defeatured to work with a RPR MAC?
Thanks,
Vasan Karighattam
Architect
Intel Corporation
9750 Goethe Road
Sacramento, CA 95827
(916)855-5177 x4907
Sounds great. The definition sounds more
clear too.
The only minor tweak that I would suggest
is to replace the word node with flows or conversations in the end of
the definition which would make it:
Bottleneck-link fairness:
Fairness based on a mechanism that controls the
throughput of each node according to a fair proportion of
that link between source and destination that is shared by
the highest number of nodes.
Khaled Amer President, AmerNet Inc. Architecture Analysis
and Performance Modeling
Specialists Address: 13711 Solitaire Way,
Irvine, CA 92620 Phone:
(949)552-1114
Fax:
(949)552-1116
e-mail: khaledamer@xxxxxxx
Web:
www.performancemodeling.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001
12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Definition
of terms - First set
Dear Khaled
Thank you for your comments. I will try to quantify maximum
delay bounds for different kind of services.
Next try.
I will change the original definition
Bottleneck-link fairness:
Fairness based on a mechanism that coordinates
the ring access of only those nodes that use the same links for
their packet transfers.
by
Bottleneck-link fairness:
Fairness based on a mechanism that controls the
throughput of each node according to a fair proportion of
that link between source and destination that is shared by
the highest number of nodes.
Best regards, Harmen
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001
7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [RPRWG]
Definition of terms - First set
Harmen,
This is an excellent piece of work.
I have a couple of
questions:
- Do we want to quantify delay jitter
instead of just mentioning variation in delay? I know it's a
sore point in the literature, but maybe we can come up with
something.
- Not sure I understand your
definition for Bottleneck-link
fairness
Thanks.
Khaled Amer President, AmerNet Inc. Architecture
Analysis and Performance Modeling
Specialists Address: 13711 Solitaire
Way, Irvine, CA
92620 Phone:
(949)552-1114
Fax:
(949)552-1116
e-mail: khaledamer@xxxxxxx
Web:
www.performancemodeling.com
|