RE: Fw: [RPRWG] CRC check in each node?
I think, in variable sized packet based network, CRC plays a very important
role. It may be noted that at TCP level, all we have is checksum.
Regards,
Devendra Tripathi
CoVisible Solutions Inc.
(formerly VidyaWeb, Inc)
Pune, India
Tel: +91-20-433-1362
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Reuven Zeitak
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 10:47 PM
> To: ieee 802.17 list
> Subject: RE: Fw: [RPRWG] CRC check in each node?
>
>
>
> Hi Everybody,
>
> I have been following this interesting thread. I want
> to rock the boat a bit here to make sure all points have
> been considered:
> Question: Is a CRC on data really what we want?
>
> Consider:
>
> ATM only has a HEC and does not protect data,
> it is left to the application.
>
> In some sense RPR is just an encapsulation of user data
> and has to be agnostic to the data content. As it was pointed
> out here, Users may want to keep on getting the data even if
> there are link errors. Maybe the application has a sophisticated error
> recovery method. Maybe it has none. Is it the RPR layer's job to
> provide the application an error indication?
>
> We clearly need some kind of BER measure (in the SONET jargon)
> to verify if the link is alive. Isnt the HEC good enough for that?
> HEC errors are to be discarded at the next node anyway, so that
> there is no issue of double counting an error.
>
> reuven
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> -----------------------------
> Reuven Zeitak PhD
>
> Modeling And Algorithms
> Native Networks
> 2 Granit St., P.O.Box 7165
> Petah Tikva, Israel
> Tel: +972-3-920-2800 x 875
> Fax: +972-3-9210080
> reuven.zeitak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.nativenetworks.com
>
> The Native Way = Ethernet Simplicity + SONET Reliability
>
>