RE: [RPRWG] Potential Problem with P802.17/D0.1 PHY proposal Draft 0.34 and related .pdf slides=incorrect mapping to SONET/SDH
Hi Alan,
thanks a lot for your important issues.
Regarding the first issue, I think that there was a miscommunication
between IEEE 802.17 and T1X1.5. In the liason we drafted in September
we mentioned the 802.17 WG is evaluating the usage of the frame-mapped
GFP with null extension header as ONE option to map RPR over SONET/SDH.
We did not mean as the SOLELY option.
To solve the issue, I would propose to make another liaison in January
to inform T1X1.5 that we are currently defining two options for mapping
RPR over SONET/SDH.
Regarding the second point, I agree with you that the PoS-like mapping
we are defining is not compliant with RFC 2615 (PoS).
I would then propose to use a different Signal Label code to be
required to T1X1 and ITU-T.
Are there any other views on these topics?
Italo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan_Weissberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:Alan_Weissberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 8:26 PM
> To: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: Alan_Weissberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Steve_Gorshe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> weissber@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [RPRWG] Potential Problem with P802.17/D0.1 PHY
> proposal Draft
> 0.34 and related .pdf slides=incorrect mapping to SONET/SDH
>
>
>
> All
>
> 1. T1X1.5 and ITU SG15 have decided that RPR MAC frames are
> to be mapped to SONET/SDH using Frame Mode GFP with a null
> extension hdr. This was a direct result of the liaison that
> we sent to T1X1.5 as output from our Sept 2001 meeting (there
> was no mention of byte stuffed HDLC as an alternative mapping
> in that liaison). At the SG15 Nov meeting, GFP Ring mode
> text was removed in deference to the RPR-to GFP frame mode mapping.
>
> This means there is currently no other way to map RPR MAC
> frames to SONET/SDH! In particular, RPR mapping over "POS"
> would not be recogized (there would be an incompatibility if
> one RPR node used GFP and the other used "POS" mapping)
>
> 2. Even more important, the Path Signal Label (PSL) code
> point assigned to "HDLC" in T1.105.02 (SONET) and G.707/G.783
> (SDH) is for PPP over byte stuffed HDLC (AKA Packet over
> SONET or POS) with a specific payload scrambler. Using byte
> stuffed HDLC without PPP is not POS, as it is defined by the
> IETF. Thus, it would be a violation of use of that PSL code
> point. Hence, the referenced RPR PHY proposal for RPR- "POS"
> mapping to SONET/SDH violates the definition of POS (RFC
> ___), in addition to both T1.105.02 (SONET)and G.707/G.783 (SDH) stds.
>
>
> I have copied Steve Gorshe -the editor of T1.105 series
> standards and G.gfp- in on this mail and have dissucesed this
> issue with him
>
> I will be writing separate mails on why I feel the current
> RPR proposal are too complicated to be deployed and
> maintained by service providers
>
> Rgds
>
> alan
>
> Alan J Weissberger
> DCT
> PO Box 3441
> Santa Clara, CA 95055-3441
> 1 408 330 0564 voice
> 1 408 565 0335 fax
>
>
WINMAIL.DAT