Re: [RE] Results of today's discussion
Title: Re: [RE] Results of today's discussion
There are two methods in use now for carrying Ethernet and IP data on 1394. There is a straight Ethernet tunneling method that is used by Unibrain in their FireNet product, and there is IP1394, which is used by all current Mac/Windows/Linux systems to carry IP(only) data on 1394. Windows and Mac systems also provide a simple bridging system between 1394 and 802 nets so that an attached 1394 bus appears to be on the same subnet as the corresponding 802 net. (Rather convenient for all the CE-based IP discovery and control protocols that count on “local subnet only” communication such as UPnP, Rendezvous, and CEA 2027).
On 10/26/04 10:50 AM, "JMB" <jmb@LMDATA.ES> wrote:
Bill and All,
About the second question:
Have you considered the possibility of transmit Ethernet frames over 1394?
It is far better to use Ethernet transport than IP, and this solves the compatibility problem. If yous want to transmit IP, it can be done over Ethernet, the opposite is much more complicated. In addition Ethernet is, by default, multiprotocol.
Remember that the Fast Ethenet working group used the physical hardware (TP-PMD) developed for FDDI, and the Giga Ethernet working group used The ESCON form IBM.
I am not an expert in 1394, but it has a bus topology, and I am sure that there is no problem to make an adaptation to carry the Etenrnet frames.
Thans
Jose Morales Barroso, Ph.D.
L&M Data Communications
jmb@ieee.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Shvodian William-r63101 <mailto:bill.shvodian@FREESCALE.COM>
To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [RE] Results of today's discussion
I am new to the reflector, so I hope it is OK if I ask a couple of newbie questions:
1) How would a PAR for this study group differ from 802.3ar? Would the 2 TGs be coordinated somehow?
2) Bridging to 1394 is pretty stringent and may be re-inventing the 1394 bridge wheel. Why not send IP over 1394 in the home and use the isochronous services of 1394 over CAT-5 rather than drastically changing Ethernet to support isochronous traffic?
Thanks.
Bill
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Jim Battaglia
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 10:30 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [RE] Results of today's discussion
Attached, please find the list of isochronous requirements for 802.3 RE that were refined in today's impromptu discussion.
Mike Teener will be providing additional comments to this list.
Comments and suggestions are welcome.
Jim Battaglia wrote:
Hello all,
You are cordially invited to join us for an impromptu meeting to discuss the arguments in favor of isochronous capabilities for 802.3 RE. The meeting will be held at Pioneer Corporation at 1pm PDT this Monday (10/25/04)
All are welcome. Hope you can be there.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&countryid=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=address&searchtype=address&address=101+Metro+Drive&city=San+Jose&state=CA&zipcode=&search=++Search++ <http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&countryid=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=address&searchtype=address&address=101+Metro+Drive&city=San+Jose&state=CA&zipcode=&search=++Search++>
--
Michael D. Johas Teener - Mike@JohasTeener.com PGP ID 0x3179D202