[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re:RE: RE: stds-802-16: SYSREQ: Reference Diagram from Marga

To: <mariannag@breezecom.co.il>, <stds-802-16@ieee.org>
Subject: Re:RE: RE: stds-802-16: SYSREQ: Reference Diagram from Marga
From: Steve.Farrell@stelhq.com
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:26:30 -0700
Sender: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org

Hi gang,

I would like to continue this line of dialog because I think that this is
important...regarding Marianna's responses...
 
1. ATM vs. IP:
Let me step back and ask a dumb question, if IEEE 802 would not accept an ATM
based addressing mode and this group defines an IP only based addressing mode,
than the standard will most likely be completely incompatible with the lion's
share of the LMDS equipment deployments over the next 3 years.  Does that make
sense for us? Does this group run the risk of creating a standard that noone
adopts?  

Is everyone in agreement that ATM vs. IP over the air may fall outside the scope
of this group?

2. Coexistence With Existing Equipment:
With regard to Marianna's comments about coexistance prior to system
requirements, I am in full agreement.  I recall that on numerous occassions,
Roger was asked by various members for us to consider coexistance first.  He
rejected those numerous plees outright.  I think that this issue needs
revisiting.  Perhaps we need to put this issue to a vote.

3. Participation:
I realize that those companies who are already selling equipment (including
Stanford Telecom) are busy selling what they have developed.  None-the-less, if
the industry leaders are not involved in this standardization effort and the
realities of existing equipment in the market are ignored, there is a good
chance that the market will ignore this standard.

Sincerely,

Steve Farrell
Product Marketing Manager
Stanford Wireless Broadband Inc.
1221 Crossman Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA  94089-1117
phone:  408-745-2530
fax:    408-745-2673
steve.farrell@stelhq.com


> Steve,
> 
> I am afraid you misunderstood my point no. 3. What I meant to say is
>  that without the definition of the Interworking Functions we will be
>  limited to a VoIP solution only!
> 
> Regarding the ATM vs. IP, I agree that the backbone can be ATM or IP,
>  but being compliant with IEEE 802.1  (basic requirement) simply means
>  (to me at least) that IEEE will not accept under its umbrella a
> standard
>  with ATM addressing mode! So some external ATM  Router 
> should be used, and here comes the BreezeCOM support for distributed
>  architectures, that fits the IEEE requirements.
> 
802.14 tries hardly to push the ATM interfaces, but will the standard be
approved?
In the mean time they are defining only the MAC layer, data and digital
video can work with static provisioning, but what about telephony?

> You have rised a very interesting point: who is entitled to draft
> standards.
> From my BRAN experience, the ones having products on the market
>  have no interest in drafting any interoperability standard.
> This is why BRAN-HA has chosen to go first to coexistence between 
> systems.
> 
> I just want to remember you that OFDM modem standards supporting
>  fast packet data transfer have been drafted by both IEEE 802.11 and
>  ETSI BRAN and that low cost modem chips will appear on the market,
>  making the way to interoperability easier.
> 
>  
> Regards,
> 
> Marianna
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:        Steve.Farrell@stelhq.com [SMTP:Steve.Farrell@stelhq.com]
> Sent:        Sat, April 17, 1999 3:25 AM
> To:        stds-802-16@ieee.org
> Subject:        Re:RE: stds-802-16: SYSREQ: Reference Diagram from
> Margarete
> 
> Hi gang,
> 
> From a marketing standpoint, regarding point #3, I guess that I
> completely
> disagree with Marianna.   I listened to Marianna's Breezecom pitch a
> few
> meetings ago and I guess that I still guess that I do not really
> understand
> where Breezecom is coming from with regard to the LMDS market.  
> 
> The native IP vs. ATM transport battle will be fought out in the
> market place,
> so an argument either way is not really productive.  However, a
> standard that
> would not accomodate both ATM and IP transport would not be an
> adoptable
> standard.  If you look at the market leaders in LMDS right now,
> companies who
> are deploying equipment today (e.g. Nortel Networks, Newbridge
> Networks, Lucent,
> etc.), the majority of the deployments are ATM based and will continue
> to be ATM
> based transport.  Such systems can handle toll quality voice services
> today
> either through an ATM network or routed out to a Class 5 switch--not
> via Voice
> over IP.    This ATM based equipment is not only what is being
> deployed, it is
> what many of the LMDS Operators are demanding.   As a result, an IP
> only
> standard does not work.
> 
> I guess in general, I really question the ability for the group to
> standardize
> on anything right now when there are so many approaches making their
> way into
> the market (ATM vs. IP transport, TDD, FDD, and TDMA, various
> modulation
> approaches, etc.).  It may make more sense to let the market decide
> some of this
> for us.  Standardization can lead to cost reduction, but I do not see
> us at the
> point where is makes sense yet.
> 
> Furthermore, if we are to standardize anything, it is critical that
> the market
> leaders actively deploying equipment in the LMDS industry are the ones
> involved
> in setting the course of the technical groups.
> 
> Steve Farrell
> Product Marketing Manager
> Stanford Wireless Broadband Inc.
> 1221 Crossman Avenue
> Sunnyvale, CA  94089-1117
> phone:  408-745-2530
> fax:    408-745-2673
> steve.farrell@stelhq.com
> 
> 
> ____________________Reply Separator____________________
> Subject:    RE: stds-802-16: SYSREQ: Reference Diagram from Margarete
> Ra
> Author: Marianna Goldhammer <mariannag@breezecom.co.il>
> Date:       4/15/99 5:46 PM
> 
> [Notice: It is the policy of 802.16 to treat messages posted here as
> non-confidential.]
> 
>   Hi All,
> 
>   Some remarks:
> 
>   1. The Inter Working Function should appear also on CPE side.
> 
>   2. We will have interworking equipment supporting data only if the
> standard will not define the IWF functions.
> 
>   3. In this case, the general approach should be stated clearly as
> Voice and Video over IP, the IWF functions being defined by the ITU-T
> /
> IETF standards (H.323, SIP, etc.).
> 
>   4. If we want to support also transparent voice services ( as
> fractional T1, GR 303), we have to define the IWF functions inside the
> standard. This will arise a lot of work, in order to shorten the
> process
> I think that the IWF functions may be defined in a second phase of the
> drafting.
> 
> 
>   Best Regards,
> 
>   Marianna
> 
> 
>        Marianna Goldhammer
>        R&D Manager - Access
>        
>        BreezeCOM Ltd.
>        Atidim Technology Park, Building 1
>        P.O.Box 13139, Tel Aviv 61131, Israel
>        Tel: (972)- 3 -6456241/6262
>        Fax: (972) -3 -6456290
> 
>       Email: mariannag@breezecom.co.il
> 
>             http://www.breezecom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian_Petry@3com.com [SMTP:Brian_Petry@3com.com]
> > Sent: Mon, April 05, 1999 9:22 PM
> > To:   stds-802-16@ieee.org
> > Subject:  stds-802-16: SYSREQ: Reference Diagram from Margarete
> > Ralston
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Here is a contribution from Maragarete Ralston.  It is actually two
> > files: a
> > one-page diagram and another which is some text describing the
> > diagram.  This
> > diagram captures what the system requirements task group discussed
> at
> > the Austin
> > meeting.  Thank you Margarete.
> > 
> > Please review the terminology, interface labels (reference points),
> > and function
> > descriptions.
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > 
> > Brian Petry
> > 
> > 
> > (See attached file: 80216sc-99_3.pdf)(See attached file:
> > 80216sc-99_4.pdf) << File: Adobe Portable Document >>  << File:
> Adobe
> > Portable Document >> 
> 
>  
>

Message-Id: <D607A03B0998D111970B00805FA135886A7100@light.breezecom.co.il>
From: Marianna Goldhammer <mariannag@breezecom.co.il>
To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16: SYSREQ: Reference Diagram from Margarete Ralston
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:46:28 +0300
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
Precedence: bulk

Message-Id: <D607A03B0998D111970B00805FA135886C3FC1@light.breezecom.co.il>
From: Marianna Goldhammer <mariannag@breezecom.co.il>
To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
Subject: RE: RE: stds-802-16: SYSREQ: Reference Diagram from Margarete
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 20:20:40 +0300
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BE8AA2.19AB8A00"
Sender: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
Precedence: bulk

Prev by Date: stds-802-16: 802.1+2
Next by Date: stds-802-16: 802.16, not 802, will deal with "ATM vs. IP"
Prev by thread: stds-802-16: 802.1+2
Next by thread: stds-802-16: 802.16, not 802, will deal with "ATM vs. IP"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread