Re: [RPRWG] Gandalf - question on Framing
Italo, Thanks for spelling it out. I have a two part reply for you embedded in
the text below.
Regards, Siamack
Italo.Busi@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> The two competing ideas arguing whether to put the RPR specific fields
> before or after the Ethernet-like fields are both techincally sound.
> The discussion on this issue is more political (e.g. reusing the
> existing testing equipment and/or off-the-shelf Ethernet MAC chips).
Aladdin which I believe is what you support, puts the RPR header after,
allowing for re-use and time to market. In other words, it is saying why put
roadblocks in place that limit competition and hence market growth when they
add no value and have no technical merit. Now lets go to part two;
> What I am arguing, from the technical perspective, is that we do not
> need a field in the RPR header that says that the frame is an RPR
> frame: it is an RPR frame by definition.
>
> We would have needed such a field if we designed RPR as a ring-aware
> switching technology, built on top of point-to-point Ethernet MACs. But
> this is not actually what we did.
So why are we now blocking re-use and time to market? So I have to repeat
myself: A resilient packet ring adds fairness, resiliency, topology discovery,
ring selection, new client interface, etc. This should be enough for its
uniqueness.
begin:vcard
n:Ayandeh;Siamack
tel;fax:781 271 9988
tel;work:781 276 4192
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.onexco.com
org:Onex Communications Corporation
adr:;;34 Crosby Drive;Bedford;MA;01730;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:sayandeh@xxxxxxxxxx
title:Senior Consulting Engineer
end:vcard