RE: [RPRWG] MAC Question
Latency is definitely an issue, especially when it is accumulated end to end
to a very
high valve, affecting applications. From my own experience, I have yet to
switch vendor proudly announce that their switches are capable of adding
delay" as a feature.
From: Devendra Tripathi [mailto:tripathi@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:04 AM
To: Ajay Sahai; Ray Zeisz
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] MAC Question
Going by experience in switches, latency is not a real issue.
90 Great Oaks Blvd #206
San Jose, Ca 95119
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Ajay Sahai
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 6:34 AM
> To: Ray Zeisz
> Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RPRWG] MAC Question
> I guess the answer is that the group is still debating this issue. Some
> vendors prefer to have a largish transit buffer where transit frames
> are stored. Others are proposing "cut through" transit functionality.
> I personally feel that latency will be larger in the first approach.
> On another note I do not believe that the similarity with 802.5 is
> on the lines of claiming a token etc. etc. The MAC mechanism
> is going to be different.
> Hope this helps.
> Ajay Sahai
> Ray Zeisz wrote:
> > I am following the .17 group from afar, but I have a question:
> > Is it acceptable for each node in the ring to buffer up an entire packet
> > before forwarding it to its neighbor? Would the latency be to
> great if this
> > were done? Or is the .17 direction more along the lines of
> 802.5 where only
> > a few bits in each ring node are buffered...just enough to
> detect a token
> > and set a bit to claim it.
> > Ray
> > Ray Zeisz
> > Technology Advisor
> > LVL7 Systems
> > http://www.LVL7.com
> > (919) 865-2735