Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [RPRWG] The potential RPR market



Yong, you bring up an excellent point when you say with regard to Token Ring
"did you ever work w/ multi-vendor rings and expected them to work, especially during the earlier years?" 
A major reason early token ring implementations were not necessarily interoperable in the years 1985 - 1989 is that people were designing to two standards, the IBM Architectural Reference document, and the IEEE 802.5 standard which was well under 100 pages in length.  (Some vendors made the mistake of thinking that in case of conflict, use what was in the standard.)  We learned since then that to really get interoperability you need a great deal more specification, which is why we expect to create a standard that is at least 200 pages in length. 
 
However, we must still be careful to make certain we fully specify those parameters which are required for interoperability.  We must also realize that a great deal of the work to be done is in the analysis of responses to error conditions, and in specifying the required responses under a very wide range of error conditions. 
 
Best regards,
 
Robert D. Love
Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle     Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773       Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx          Fax: 720 222-0900
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:05 PM
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] The potential RPR market

Dear Ray,
 
    Regarding Token Ring... I also worked for a company who
sold millions, but did you ever work w/ multi-vendor rings and
expected them to work, especially during the earlier years?
That was the point.  I agree that it was a huge market success,
while it lasted.
 
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: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ray Zeisz
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 5:21 AM
To: 'Yongbum Kim'; Harmen van As
Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] The potential RPR market

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
(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>, "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
------------------------------------------------------------------