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

Re: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question

To: Wolfram Lemppenau <wle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Angela T. Faber" <afaber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question
From: George Suwala <gsuwala@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:56:24 -0700
Cc: vasan.karighattam@xxxxxxxxx, stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
In-Reply-To: <3AE52425.E4E7B261@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <85256A37.00754B91.00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx


At 08:58 AM 4/24/2001 +0200, Wolfram Lemppenau wrote:

>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.

Fully agreed as well.  

thanks

George

References:
- Re: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question
  - From: Angela T. Faber
- Re: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question
  - From: Wolfram Lemppenau

Prev by Date: RE: [RPRWG] RPR Perf: Single vs. Dual ring?]
Next by Date: Re: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question
Prev by thread: Re: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question
Next by thread: RE: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread