RE: Next Steps toward an RPR Draft Standard

[Raj Sharma <raj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: Next Steps toward an RPR Draft Standard

Then we should clarify what RPR means by
Voice, Video over RPR !

What kind of "voice service" could you transport
over native RPR? Maybe, an exmaple of such service
might help me understand what is meant by "voice
services"

raj

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 4:44 PM
To: stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Next Steps toward an RPR Draft Standard

I, for one, never assumed that the RPR was intended to support
"clock synchronization of TDM equipment".

Along with this, I never assumed that the RPR would be
used for circuit emulation.

I don't recall that the RPRSG ever defined such services as
being within the scope of the project.

I believe that we are working on a resilient PACKET ring,
not a resilient TDM ring or a resilient CIRCUIT EMULATION ring.

Howard Frazier
Cisco Systems, Inc.

----- Begin Included Message -----

From owner-stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx Wed Sep  6 15:49:09 2000
From: Raj Sharma <raj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Next Steps toward an RPR Draft Standard
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:38:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Listname: stds-802-rprsg
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to  majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-rprsg-approval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Howard,
The issue is clock synchronization of TDM equipment
using RPR tunnels. It is inconceivable of clock synchronization
with a required minimum jitter over Ethernet physical layer and can may
only be provided if SONET is not used. This makes RPR dependendent
on a particular physical layer for some of the services defined.
raj

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 10:49 AM
To: stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Next Steps toward an RPR Draft Standard

Raj,

I thought that the work of the RPRSG was to create a layer 2 protocol
that was optimized for data transfer.  I don't recall seeing the
words "multi service" in the PAR that we unanimously agreed upon.

That said, I do not see why Voice, Video and Data can't be carried on
an RPR which uses an 802.3 gigabit or 10 gigabit physical layer.
What's magic about the SONET physical layer in this regard?

Howard Frazier
Cisco Systems, Inc.

----- End Included Message -----