Re: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question
Hi Mike,
I totally agree, we need Alarm Indication Signals (AIS)
common and independent from the physical layer. In addition
RPR can benefit from whatever AIS is offered by the PHY.
Wolfi
Mike Takefman schrieb:
> 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