RE: Avoiding Confusion in the Marketplace
Folks,
Another way to look at it is that, if the market believes that we are
inventing a totally new physical and data link layer, the market may not
embrace RPR (e.g. FDDI). I am not suggesting to mislead the market, but
during the discussions, there is always reference to Ethernet capabilities
as Bob described.
Luc
-----Original Message-----
From: Yongbum Kim [mailto:ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 4:41 PM
To: 'RDLove'; 'Mike Takefman'; stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Avoiding Confusion in the Marketplace
Dear Bob,
We will borrow Physical Layer from SONET OC48
(2.5G), Fiber Channel (1G),
and 10G Ethernet. The fact that FDDI was used as the
backbone LAN, largely
carrying Ethernet traffic (encapsulated or translated), does
not make FDDI an
Ethernet. I do not see how these relate. Again, in the
context of IEEE 802.17
I do not see how the word "Ethernet" could be used.
regards,
Yong.
-----Original Message-----
From: RDLove [SMTP:rdlove@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 4:32 PM
To: Yongbum Kim; 'Mike Takefman';
stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Avoiding Confusion in the Marketplace
I have a slightly different perspective on this. I
certainly want to make
sure the market is not confused by what RPR is, or that it
be confused with
Ethernet. However, I expect the word "Ethernet" will come
up a lot in
describing RPRs capabilities in words users understand. The
reasons are
twofold. We may be borrowing from the Ethernet physical
layer, and we are
likely to be using RPR rings to carry traffic that
originates at Ethernet
nodes. Because of the traffic we will carry, the ease of
logiceal
attachment of those nodes to RPR rings will be crucial and
Ethernet
compatibility will be a vital characteristic. But RPR will
be more than
Ethernet, and have capabilities that are fundamentally
missing in Ethernet
because of its architecture.
I don't know if "not just an Ethernet Ring", or "More than
just an Ethernet
Ring" would be suitable one-liner descriptions of RPR.
However, there is a
great deal of truth in those one-liners, and I wouldn't
eliminate them until
a better candidate emerged.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 720 222-0900
----- Original Message -----
From: Yongbum Kim <ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Mike Takefman' <tak@xxxxxxxxx>;
<stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 6:57 PM
Subject: RE: Avoiding Confusion in the Marketplace
>
> Dear all,
>
> I understand the marketing power of the word "Ethernet".
Let's
> NOT use it anywhere. So far, all IEEE and ANSI Rings has
been Token
> based, and RPR is a ring without a token. But RPR MAC is
Ring MAC. It
> must discover and aware of its neighbors for forwarding
decisions, access,
> CoS control, etc. IEEE 802.3ae 10G is full-duplex only,
essentially frame
> format has been preserved (i.e. no CSMA/CD). RPR frame
formats are
different
> from this. There is no Ethernet in RPR.
>
> Having said that, there are a lot of attractive
characteristics of
> Ethernet in this token-less Ring. It is truly distributed
ring access,
> plug and play, clear, simple (compared to 802.5, for
example) and explicit
> ring discovery MAC; full compatibility to 802.1's
transparent bridging and
> VLAN tagging; full compatibility to 802.3ad's port
aggregation (if we
> wish to entertain this); and the fact that RPR is
optimized solution for
> the problem (just like Ethernet was the optimal solution
in its Coax
days).
>
> RPR is a Ring Access MAC that is as easy to use as
Ethernet, but not
> Ethernet.
>
> regards,
>
> Yong.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Takefman [SMTP:tak@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 12:27 PM
> To: stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Avoiding Confusion in the Marketplace
>
>
> The idea of a tag line is a good one. Somewhat tongue in
> cheek I suggest "RPR: Its NOT just Ethernet in a ring".
>
> To some extent I look to the Alliance to come up with a
> good line since they are the marketing types.
>
> mike
>
> Luc Roy wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > You have a good point. We should agree and adopt a one
liner. It's not
> > Ethernet but it is often viewed as Ethernet on a ring
topology with
> > Sonet/SDH performance and protection mechanisms. Simply
RPR may not cut
it.
> > How about something simple like "RPR: Ethernet on a
ring". I don't
want to
> > suggest that this is the right one-liner but something
simple and
> > descriptive is required, or, people will create their
own general
> > description which will confuse the market.
> >
> > Luc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Takefman
[mailto:tak@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 7:01
PM
> > To: stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Avoiding Confusion in
the Marketplace
> >
> > People,
> >
> > For those of you who were not at the 802
plenary last
> > week I want to inform you of an issue
that we will
> > have to watch diligently.
> >
> > Members of 802.3 expressed concern that
the "market"
> > will confuse 802.17 with 802.3 because
we plan to
> > re-use some of the physical layer work
done in
> > 802.3.
> >
> > I publicly stated to 802.3 that the
intent of the
> > RPRSG and by extension 802.17 (should we
be approved)
> > will be to make crystal clear to
everyone that
> > RPR != Ethernet even though we may share
the same
> > PHY layers.
> >
> > Let me be blunt, we do not want to have
any sort of
> > flap with 802.* over this issue. Inspite
of concern
> > over this issue they voted to allow our
creation and
> > I do not want to betray that trust.
> >
> > Under no circumstances should any
company or individual
> > (working in 802.17 or affiliating itself
to 802.17)
> > suggest that RPR == Ethernet. Any
reference to Ethernet
(be
> > it
> > 1GE or 10GE) should be that RPR will use
the same
> > physical layer as 1 or 10 GE.
> >
> > I would appreciate that people forward
this message to
> > their company's marketing people and ask
that I am
> > contacted if there is any confusion. I
am not asking to
> > become a clearinghouse for
announcements, as there
> > is a clear conflict with my role as a
Cisco employee.
> >
> > I am asking that all of you work to
insure we do
> > not annoy our colleagues in other 802
groups.
> > If any of you come across any public
material that is
> > questionable, please forward me a
pointer to it
> > ASAP.
> >
> > thank you for your attention,
> >
> > mike