Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Avoiding Confusion in the Marketplace


Not to mention "ethernet" is the buzz word in the market (whether we say NOT ethernet or ethernet rings) from a marketing PR point of view, we want to use the word if it fits.


"RDLove" <rdlove@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: owner-stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx

11/15/00 05:32 PM

       
        To:        "Yongbum Kim" <ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Mike Takefman'" <tak@xxxxxxxxx>, <stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx>
        cc:        
        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