RE: [RPRWG] Gandalf - question on Framing
Hi Siamack,
I support (as one of the contributors) the Alladin proposal, allowing
re-use and time to market.
What I am arguing (as I did during the work in Alladin) is the need to
have an EtherType field that designate the frame as an RPR frame.
I do not see how this can help re-use and time to market respect to the
current Alladin proposal.
Cheers, Italo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sayandeh@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:sayandeh@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 4:21 PM
> To: Italo.Busi@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: sayandeh@xxxxxxxxxx; pkj@xxxxxxxxxxx; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx;
> tak@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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.
>
>
WINMAIL.DAT