Re: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question
Vasan,
Actually, in my opinion the debate had not yet spread
to LOS, LOF etc yet, but it will and should, so thank
you for explicitly mentioning it.
I believe that we need to define mechanisms that work
for both high touch PHYs (i.e. SONET/SDH) and basic
PHYs (ethernet). This means the RPR MAC layer has to
be able to detect certain things on its own, but the
PHY layer can signal additional information (in theory
quicker and more accurately)
cheers,
mike
"Karighattam, Vasan" wrote:
>
> Hi Wolfi,
>
> That is right. There are only 4 bits in the K1/K2 for src / dst address.
> Only 14 of the 16 addresses are usable.
> But RPR has its own addressing mechanism. The debate is whether we should /
> should not ignore the LOS, LOF,
> AIS-L, etc alarms (through SF) from sonet and replace them with new RPR
> alarms.
>
> Vasan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfram Lemppenau [mailto:wle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2:07 PM
> To: vasan.karighattam@xxxxxxxxx; afaber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question
>
> Hi Angela, hi Vasan,
>
> one more comment on using APS functionality of SDH:
>
> according ITU-T Rec. G.841 max. 16 nodes per ring are supported.
> In 802.17-rings we will have more nodes (max.).
>
> (I guess thats also one of the reasons why Cisco does not use K1/K2)
>
> Wolfi
--
Michael Takefman tak@xxxxxxxxx
Manager HW Engineering, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-271-3399 fax: 613-271-4867