|
Devendra, I have a very different view of what "PHY
agnostic means.
I believe that we must design the MAC to be able to
work without depending on any specific PHY implementation.
However, as we write the standard, we must
precisely specify how we will operate with whichever PHY layers we support with
that release of the standard. There will be normative sections (that
is to say, sections that specify what SHALL be done) that describe how we will
work with any particular PHY. I expect that we will need one editor for
each PHY that the standard will support, and these sections will contain
significant detail.
As an example, look at the 100 Mbit/s Token Ring
standard which uses the Ethernet signaling layer.
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: Thursday, April 19, 2001 3:22
PM
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Phy Layer
question
My
understanding of saying PHY agnostic is that we specify the interface in
logical way (request,
indication) with may be one example (likely Ethernet)
PHY as informative annex.
Regards,
Devendra Tripathi
VidyaWeb, Inc
90 Great
Oaks Blvd #206
San Jose, Ca 95119
Tel: (408)226-6800,
Direct:
(408)363-2375
Fax: (408)226-6862
I
am new to the group. I have been reading up the presentations. I
have a simple question.
We
are saying .17 will be layer 1 agnostic. However, (if sonet is the phy
used) sonet is aware of the ring structure - for APS,
etc.
Will the .17 specify how a sonet framer should
be defeatured to work with a RPR MAC?
Thanks,
Vasan Karighattam
Architect
Intel Corporation
9750 Goethe Road
Sacramento, CA 95827
(916)855-5177 x4907
Sounds great. The definition sounds more
clear too.
The only minor tweak that I would suggest is
to replace the word node with flows or conversations in the end of the
definition which would make it:
Bottleneck-link fairness:
Fairness based on a mechanism that controls the throughput
of each node according to a fair proportion of that link between
source and destination that is shared by the highest number of
nodes.
Khaled Amer President, AmerNet Inc. Architecture Analysis and
Performance Modeling Specialists Address: 13711
Solitaire Way, Irvine, CA
92620 Phone:
(949)552-1114
Fax:
(949)552-1116
e-mail: khaledamer@xxxxxxx
Web: www.performancemodeling.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 12:01
PM
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Definition of
terms - First set
Dear Khaled
Thank you for your comments. I will try to quantify maximum delay
bounds for different kind of services.
Next try.
I will change the original definition
Bottleneck-link fairness:
Fairness based on a mechanism that coordinates the ring
access of only those nodes that use the same links for their packet
transfers.
by
Bottleneck-link fairness:
Fairness based on a mechanism that controls the throughput
of each node according to a fair proportion of that link
between source and destination that is shared by the highest number
of nodes.
Best regards, Harmen
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001
7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Definition
of terms - First set
Harmen,
This is an excellent piece of work.
I have a couple of
questions:
- Do we want to quantify delay jitter
instead of just mentioning variation in delay? I know it's a sore
point in the literature, but maybe we can come up with something.
- Not sure I understand your definition
for Bottleneck-link
fairness
Thanks.
Khaled Amer President, AmerNet Inc. Architecture Analysis
and Performance Modeling
Specialists Address: 13711 Solitaire Way,
Irvine, CA 92620 Phone:
(949)552-1114
Fax:
(949)552-1116
e-mail: khaledamer@xxxxxxx
Web:
www.performancemodeling.com
|