Re: [8023-CMSG] Technical proposals
Ben,
Thanks for that.
Copying the reflector is fine. I didn't do that to start with because I wanted some feedback as to if this was in scope and a good idea, or had already been ruled out based on information I was not aware of.
I will not be attending the Sacramento meeting, but will be interested to see what comes out of it.
regards
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Brown [mailto:benjbrown@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 10:40 AM
To: Peter Jones; 802.3cm
Subject: Technical proposals
Peter,
I hope you don't mind that I opened your questions up
to the entire reflector. It helps me make an important
point.
Yes, I think that it is absolutely appropriate to consider
a solution for a pseudo-static rate limiter that accounts
for a difference in bit rate (e.g. 100M transmitting to 2M)
as well as a constant overhead (e.g. untagged transmitting
to tagged). Anything less than this would probably not
solve the problems of both of these kinds of networks.
Further, I advise participants that the Sacramento meeting
is indeed the appropriate time to bring technical proposals
for just such a solution. There is still plenty of time to put
some ideas on some slides. There is even time to start
sharing those ideas with other members of this task force
(yes, we're now a task force and no longer a study group)
to begin forming consensus. Consensus is what drives this
process and the responsibility for creating a consensus lies
entirely on the shoulders of every member of this task force.
The sooner we get proposals and start building consensus,
the sooner we can accept a baseline proposal, start writing
drafts and getting to the ballot process.
For now, I'll continue to be the repository for presentation
requests. I'll make sure that whoever stands in front of the
room in Sacramento is aware of your plans.
Regards,
Ben
Peter Jones wrote:
>Benjamin,
>
>I have a question based on what you said when you came to visit 802.17 (which is where I spend my time), and in conversation afterwards.
>
>It seems to me that are two main uses for the simple "rate limiting" approach:
>1) a physical bit subrated link - e.g. only 45Mb/s on a 100Mb/s link from a ethernet to DS3 media converter
>2) an encapsulating device - something that adds a fixed overhead per packet like a provider bridge or a security device.
>
>Do you think that these are both going to be addressed during the CM work?
>
>regards
>peter
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>Peter Jones Luminous Networks
>Principal Engineer 10460 Bubb Road
> Cupertino, CA, 95014 USA
>Direct: +1 408 342 2513 Main: +1 408 342 6400
>mailto: pjones@luminous.com Fax: +1 408 863 1148
>_____________________________________________________________
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------
Benjamin Brown
178 Bear Hill Road
Chichester, NH 03258
603-491-0296 - Cell
603-798-4115 - Office
benjamin-dot-brown-at-ieee-dot-org
(Will this cut down on my spam???)
-----------------------------------------