| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear Harmen,
Related to the on-going preemption discussions and
how
high priority, low-latency & jitter is handled, I agree
that high speed RPR ring does not need preemption, but
the
lower speed one does.
I would like to go back to "broad market potential"
requirements, and would like to hear from the Service
Provider
community on this subject.
How many of the rings in the metro
that already has OC3
~ OC12 rings in a SONET infrastructure
will be retrofitted
w/ RPR for packet services?
My assumption in this
had been that if a vendor installs new
equipment, it would be the latest and fastest
available box, because
installation and upgrade cost out-weigh box
cost. So the percentage
of the retrofit market is relatively minimal. If this is the case,
lower speed MAC behavior could live outside of
the standard. If this
is not the case, then we must define a single preemption
behavior
for all speeds of operation (again the second if,
if the group
wants to entertain the objective of supporting this high
priority
low latency & jitter class).
Would someone from the Service Provider community provide
some
feedback on this retrofit market?
regards,
Yong.
============================================ -----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Harmen van As Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:14 AM To: Sanjay Agrawal Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx Subject: [RPRWG] The potential RPR market Dear Sanjay
I am not worried about delays on super-high speed
backbone and regional rings. Here I agree, there is not much to gain by
implementing preemption. I am addressing a much and much larger market than
telecommunication backbone and regional rings. That market comprises rings
and backbone rings for small offices, hotels, major stores, small business
centers, hospitals, companies, campus areas, manufactury
plants, industrial plants, small public access areas, ships,
airplaines, cars, interconnection of base stations of wireless networks, etc.,
etc.
The motivation to install RPR in that market will
be resilience and QoS. That market needs also
lower speeds rings, for instance also 100 Mbit/s Ethernet and 155 Mbit/s
SONET/SDH or other transmission links in that speed range. If IEEE 802.17
also gains that market, it will be extreme successful. A huge market
for the telecomunnication, data and chip industries. I cannot imagine that
including the lower speed range would seriously delay the completion of the
standard, when there is a group of members that is interested to work out
the corresponding details. To my opnion, IEEE 802.17 has nothing to
loose by extending the application areas of RPRs.
The standard could for instance define that on
rings in this lower speed range preemption is allowed and that products with and
without preemption as well as cut-through and store-and-forward operations
must interwork. On higher speed rings, there is no preemption and here products
using cut-through or store-and-forward must operate together.
Best regards
Harmen
|