Re: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question
Hi Angela, hi Vasan,
thanks for your response.
Angela, we are 100% in line. My target was, as Vasan worded, that we cannot use
K1/K2.
We need something independent.
In addition, it is well understood, that in case of using SDH nteworks as !
transmission
technology ! (even some segments of SDH rings in between RPR nodes) these
SDH rings will not be visible to RPR.
"Angela T. Faber" schrieb:
> Hi Wolfi
>
> Not sure what exactly was the context before, but SDH rings operating as 1:n
> shared protection (MSSPRING) have the 16 node restriction due to the node ID
> that is 4-bit long (i.e., you can only address 2^4 nodes in one ring).
> Even if we have an SDH ring transporting the traffic of a RPR, the 16-node
> restriction doesn't apply to RPR, since RPR is not going to use the same
> signaling as used in SDH (we probably will be using RPR's own protection scheme,
> that's why we are having so much discussion on which protection we want to use!)
>
> Angela
>
> Wolfram Lemppenau <wle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on 04/23/2001 05:07:24 PM
>
> To: vasan.karighattam@xxxxxxxxx, afaber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx (bcc: Angela T. Faber/Telcordia)
> 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