RE: [RPRWG] The potential RPR market
I guess we need to think on this. In particular I would like to point two
things:
1. We definitely should not worry about half duplex stuff.
2. On LLC service interface, we will have to add at least priority as
new parameter along with existing ones.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Ray Zeisz <Zeisz@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:20:33 -0400
>I totally agree with Mr. Kim..... I dare say it....but Ethernet is here to
>stay in the LAN. If it is replaced by anything it will be wireless. So
>let's focus RPR on a problem space that we know exists and can be bound.
>Any effort to replace 802.3 with 802.17 would be met with huge opposition.
>I seem to recall one note on this reflector last week that claim "802.3 is
>the competition". No. 802.3 is not the competition, we should embrace
>802.3 and look for ways to add value to 802.3; but that is not to say we
>should ignore everything else either (especially not SANs).
>
>
>One comment on the note below about 802.5 never achieving broad
>interoperability in the industry:
>I am not sure what Token Ring did not interoperated with, and I am not sure
>that it really mattered. Token Ring was a huge success, not matter how you
>look at it. I personally worked for one company that made over a billion
>(with a B) dollars per year (and for many years) selling Token Ring
>products. We should all hope that .17 is that successful.
>
>
>Ray Zeisz
>Technology Advisor
>LVL7 Systems
>http://www.LVL7.com <http://www.lvl7.com/>
>(919) 865-2735
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Yongbum Kim [mailto:ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 2:23 PM
>To: Harmen van As
>Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [RPRWG] The potential RPR market
>
>
>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.
>
>============================================
>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
>============================================
>
>
>-----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
><mailto:Harmen.R.van-As@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >, "Sanjay Agrawal" <
>sanjay@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sanjay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] The potential RPR market
> From: "Yongbum Kim" < ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:18:22 -0700
> cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx <mailto:stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
> Importance: Normal
> In-Reply-To: < 003301c0c40a$d3bfe6e0$6d588380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
><003301c0c40a$d3bfe6e0$6d588380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx">mailto:003301c0c40a$d3bfe6e0$6d588380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
> Sender: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto:ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx> www.broadcom.com
><http://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 <http://www.ikn.tuwien.ac.at> email:
>Harmen.R.van-As@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Harmen.R.van-As@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Devendra Tripathi
Vice President & CTO
VidyaWeb, Inc
90 Great Oaks Blvd #206
San Jose, Ca 95119
Tel: (408)226-6800
Fax: (408)226-6862
--