| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
BIR does not imply a slotted ring. It is a ring where transit frames have priority over ingress frames, unless transmission of the ingress frame is in progress, in which case the transit frame waits in an insertion buffer for the transmission to complete. Definitions from the 'terms and definitions' document are appended below (see http://www.ieee802.org/17/documents/presentations/jul2001/jul_2001_presentations.htm for the terms and definitions documents).
Some terms used in the proposal have not yet been put in the T&D document so let me know if you have further questions.
Bob
buffer insertion ring (BIR): A ring that allows transit frames to be transmitted ahead of ingress frames except when the latter has already begun transmission. A station contains a transit buffer (insertion buffer) of sufficient size to store transit frames received during the time that an ingress frame is being transmitted. In the worst case, a transit frame is delayed by the time required to transmit a frame of the MTU size at each station along the path.
buffer insertion method: The method of using a BIR for
ring transport and access. The buffer insertion method can be applied
to all traffic on the ring or to one or more specific traffic classes.
Siamack Ayandeh wrote:
Bob,Could you please explain "Buffer Insertion Ring" ? Are you suggsting a slotted ring for
RPR?Siamack
Bob Sultan wrote:
> I have posted a revision of the proposal that we distributed in hardcopy
> at the May meeting. It is posted at
> http://www.ieee802.org/17/documents/presentations/jul2001/jul_2001_presentations.htm
> (titled 'Proposal for Portland').
>
> This is an architectural proposal, not a description of objectives or
> requirements. It's an attempt to converge our own RPR views with what
> we have been hearing from others. Comments can go to the reflector or
> to me. I'd be particularly interested in hearing from people who might
> be in agreement with some part of the proposal, but would like changes
> in particular places (or would like to fill in some of the gaps).
>
> The proposal isn't complete and hasn't been fully debugged (all the
> usual disclaimers). There is a typo in the second sentence,
> 'understanding' should be 'understand'.
>
> Bob