RE: [RPRWG] RFC 2892; The Cisco SRP MAC Layer Protocol
I was unable to find the motions document from the March plenary on the RPR
web-site, but we did vote on the issue regarding having a masterless ring.
The idea was to have a fully distributed algorithm for access to the ring's
physical layer.
The motion came through, i.e. the ring is masterless.
Best Regards,
Fredrik
---------------------------------------------
Fredrik Davik
Phone: +47 22 84 01 55
Mobile: +47 41 54 47 78
Institute of Informatics
University of Oslo
mailto:bjornfd@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~bjornfd
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx]På vegne
av Ray Zeisz
Sendt: 4. april 2001 15:54
Til: dbrown@xxxxxxxxxx; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Emne: RE: [RPRWG] RFC 2892; The Cisco SRP MAC Layer Protocol
Do the .17 objectives prevent the election of a master? Clearly requiring a
specific node to be on the ring and be the master would not be a good design
point; however, it seems that having a process like 802.5's Active/Standby
monitor election may not be a terrible thing to have.
Has there been any direction set on this?
Ray Zeisz
Technology Advisor
LVL7 Systems
http://www.LVL7.com
(919) 865-2735
-----Original Message-----
From: dbrown@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dbrown@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 4:54 PM
To: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [RPRWG] RFC 2892; The Cisco SRP MAC Layer Protocol
After reading through RFC2892, it is not clear to me how each node
"discovers" which interface is on which ring (i.e. inner or outer).
I'm not suggesting we follow this implementation, but I am curious how the
assignment is done.
It could be done with a master device, but I believe that goes against one
of our objectives, I'd know if they were posted:)
It could be hard coded, but that might limit flexibility.
Regards,
Dave Brown
Chief Architect
MOSAID Semiconductor
(613) 599-9539