Re: [RPRWG] Gandalf - question on Framing
Mike
The point you raise about violating the 5 criteria is not quite clear. Which criteria
is violated? Criteria 2 on compatibility states that RPR frame "format will allow for
a SIMPLE mapping for 802.3 frames into RPR frames and vise versa". Now what is
simpler than a null mapping (i.e. just augmenting).
The distinct identity criteria lists:
- bandwidth management
- high speed rings (>OC-12)
- sub 50 [ms] protection
- & frame size greater than 1518 [bytes]
Again no reference to framing as being the unique feature.
Furthermore it is still not clear why one approach is better than the other. If I
understand you correctly, either approach would do, but one is more politically
correct.
Regards, Siamack
> Ethernet Frame Design:
> ----------------------
>
> Consider if the RPR frame is exactly the Ethernet frame with the RPR
> details placed after a TYPE field and the FCS covering exactly
> what the Ethernet FCS covers. If so, we violate our 5 critera
> and should recind our PAR or dot3 would do it for us. This
> is because it violates the uniqueness requirement. It also
> pushes us into 802.1 territory, since these techiques could
> be applicable to all MACs, since a new type was defined.
>
> Every meeting I am up there reminding people that 802.3 had
> serious concerns about our group intruding into their
> space. Use of the Ethernet frame is absolutely un-acceptable
> in my technical and politcal opinion.
begin:vcard
n:Ayandeh;Siamack
tel;fax:781 271 9988
tel;work:781 276 4192
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.onexco.com
org:Onex Communications Corporation
adr:;;34 Crosby Drive;Bedford;MA;01730;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:sayandeh@xxxxxxxxxx
title:Senior Consulting Engineer
end:vcard