RE: [RPRWG] The potential RPR market

["Harmen van As" <Harmen.R.van-As@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Yong

 

If you only ask service providers whether they would like to support lower speed rings, you not really ask the market that I addressed in my mail. That market has very much to do with communications, but it is not the target of service prioviders. It is the broad market of future multimedia communications mainly in facilities outside the area of network operators and service providers. It is complementory to 802.3 networks, it is the world that previously was addressed by 802.4, 802.5, and FDDI. I do not really understand why that market would not be of interest to IEEE 802.17. Why should those areas live outside the standard, when they perfectly fit to resilience and QoS. New standard neccessary?

 

Additionally addressed market:

rings and backbone rings for small offices, hotels, major stores, small business centers, hospitals, companies, campus areas, manufactury plants, industrial plants, small public access areas, ships, airplaines, cars, interconnection of base stations of wireless networks, etc., etc.

 

Best regards

Harmen

 

 

Yongbum Kim wrote:

 

To: "Harmen van As" <Harmen.R.van-As@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Sanjay Agrawal" <sanjay@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
     Subject: RE: [RPRWG] The potential RPR market
     From: "Yongbum Kim" <ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
     Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:18:22 -0700
     cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
     Importance: Normal
     In-Reply-To: <003301c0c40a$d3bfe6e0$6d588380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx">003301c0c40a$d3bfe6e0$6d588380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
     Sender: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx

 

 Dear Harmen,
 
     Related to the on-going preemption discussions and how
 high priority, low-latency & jitter is handled, I agree
 that high speed RPR ring does not need preemption, but the
 lower speed one does.
 
     I would like to go back to "broad market potential"
 requirements, and would like to hear from the Service Provider
 community on this subject. 
      How many of the rings in the metro that already has OC3
      ~ OC12 rings in a SONET infrastructure will be retrofitted
      w/ RPR for packet services? 
 
     My assumption in this had been that if a vendor installs new
 equipment, it would be the latest and fastest available box, because
 installation and upgrade cost out-weigh box cost.  So the percentage
 of the retrofit market is relatively minimal.  If this is the case,
 lower speed MAC behavior could live outside of the standard.  If this
 is not the case, then we must define a single preemption behavior
 for all speeds of operation (again the second if, if the group
 wants to entertain the objective of supporting this high priority
 low latency & jitter class).
 
     Would someone from the Service Provider community provide some
 feedback on this retrofit market?
 
 regards,
 
 Yong.
 

 

 ============================================
 Yongbum "Yong" Kim      Direct (408)922-7502
 Technical Director      Mobile (408)887-1058
 3151 Zanker Road        Fax    (408)922-7530
 San Jose, CA 95134      Main   (408)501-7800
 ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx      www.broadcom.com
 ============================================

------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof.Dr. Harmen R. van As       Institute of Communication Networks
Head of Institute                      Vienna University of Technology
Tel  +43-1-58801-38800           Favoritenstrasse 9/388
Fax  +43-1-58801-38898          A-1040 Vienna, Austria
http://www.ikn.tuwien.ac.at      email: Harmen.R.van-As@xxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------