| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear Harmen,
My question to service providers are really that, to
the
service providers -- these may include some of the other target
markets you mentioned. 802.4 was a great technology that
no one used. 802.5, while IEEE stds, never
achieved broad
interoperability in the industry and did get displaced w/ 10BASE-T.
FDDI was a great backbone technology that actually got used, until
Fast Ethernet switches displaced it. All of these
technology wanted
to be the dominant technology that Ethernet is today once
it grew up,
but it did not.
I could say the same thing about RPR. It could
take over the
future networking as the preferred standard
everywhere; then again,
it may not. RPR is great technology for packet-on-ring,
coat-tailing
off of successes of SONET for TDM. So if SONET service ring
is
preferred method for Metro distribution, RPR ring may do the same
for
the packet delivery in Metro, and its extensions as the backbone to
the Ethernet-First-Mile technology. All other applications,
while
appropriate and possible, is hard to justify with real numbers.
Also,
I do not want to solve the problem that has been solved (and one
of
the 5 criteria, uniqueness, addresses this as well). We ought to
optimize RPR for the clear application(s)
we used to justify it.
At this point, I have
NO vested interest in influencing the
standard to fit any implementation. I hope you and readers take
my
opinion as it reads -- do not optimize the standard for <~5% of the
market, if it is at the risk of higher
cost(complexity, interoperability,
etc, etc) or scalability.
regards,
Yong.
============================================ -----Original Message-----
From: Harmen van As [mailto:Harmen.R.van-As@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 10:50 AM To: "Yongbum Kim" Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [RPRWG] The potential RPR market Dear Yong
If you only ask service providers whether they
would like to support lower speed rings, you not really ask the market that I
addressed in my mail. That market has very much to do with communications, but
it is not the target of service prioviders. It is the broad market of
future multimedia communications mainly in facilities outside the area of
network operators and service providers. It is complementory to 802.3
networks, it is the world that previously was addressed by 802.4, 802.5, and
FDDI. I do not really understand why that market would not be of interest to
IEEE 802.17. Why should those areas live outside the standard, when they
perfectly fit to resilience and QoS. New standard neccessary?
Additionally addressed market:
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.
Best regards
Harmen
Yongbum Kim wrote:
To: "Harmen van As"
<Harmen.R.van-As@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Sanjay Agrawal" <sanjay@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] The potential RPR market From: "Yongbum Kim" <ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:18:22 -0700 cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <003301c0c40a$d3bfe6e0$6d588380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx">003301c0c40a$d3bfe6e0$6d588380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sender: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx 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. ============================================
Yongbum "Yong" Kim Direct (408)922-7502 Technical Director Mobile (408)887-1058 3151 Zanker Road Fax (408)922-7530 San Jose, CA 95134 Main (408)501-7800 ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx www.broadcom.com ============================================ ------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof.Dr. Harmen R. van As Institute of Communication Networks Head of Institute Vienna University of Technology Tel +43-1-58801-38800 Favoritenstrasse 9/388 Fax +43-1-58801-38898 A-1040 Vienna, Austria http://www.ikn.tuwien.ac.at email: Harmen.R.van-As@xxxxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------ |