RE: [RPRWG] MAC Question
Latency will be an issue for voice applications depending on the ring size.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Devendra Tripathi
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:34 PM
> To: Ajay Sahai; Ray Zeisz
> Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] MAC Question
>
>
>
> Going by experience in switches, latency is not a real issue.
>
> 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
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx]On
> > Behalf Of Ajay Sahai
> > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 6:34 AM
> > To: Ray Zeisz
> > Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [RPRWG] MAC Question
> >
> >
> > Ray:
> >
> > I guess the answer is that the group is still debating this
> issue. Some
> > vendors prefer to have a largish transit buffer where transit frames
> > are stored. Others are proposing "cut through" transit
> functionality.
> >
> > I personally feel that latency will be larger in the first approach.
> >
> > On another note I do not believe that the similarity with 802.5 is
> > on the lines of claiming a token etc. etc. The MAC mechanism
> > is going to be different.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Ajay Sahai
> >
> > Ray Zeisz wrote:
> >
> > > I am following the .17 group from afar, but I have a question:
> > >
> > > Is it acceptable for each node in the ring to buffer up
> an entire packet
> > > before forwarding it to its neighbor? Would the latency be to
> > great if this
> > > were done? Or is the .17 direction more along the lines of
> > 802.5 where only
> > > a few bits in each ring node are buffered...just enough to
> > detect a token
> > > and set a bit to claim it.
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> > > Ray Zeisz
> > > Technology Advisor
> > > LVL7 Systems
> > > http://www.LVL7.com
> > > (919) 865-2735
> >