[Fwd: Avoiding Confusion in the Marketplace]
I definitely agree that the word "Ethernet" should be used sparingly.
I think it is a good thing to say that this technology will be
relatively inexpensive due to its use of existing high speed PHY's
such as those of Ethernet or SONET. I also agree that it is good
to point out how easy it is to pass Ethernet traffic through an RPR
ring. Any other references to Ethernet should be avoided, since
they would provide more things for the RPR opponents in 802.3 to
use as proof for their arguments.
Personally, I don't get the confusion between 10 Gig Ethernet and
RPR anyway. Now if someone wanted to claim that RPR is just a
major enhancement of FDDI, I could at least understand their
point. Then again, if FDDI had attempted to incorporate a lot
of the features being proposed for RPR, we would probably not be
here having this discussion.
--
******************************************************************
Timothy R. Plunkett, code B35
Building 1500A Room 110
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren Division
17320 Dahlgren Rd.
Dahlgren, VA 22448-5100
(540) 653 - 1090 (phone at Dahlgren)
(540) 653 - 8673 (fax at Dahlgren)
Howard Frazier wrote:
>
> My advice, as an ardent supporter of both RPR and Ethernet, is to NOT
> incorporate "Ethernet" into the tagline for RPR. You have a great name
> as it is. Resilient Packet Ring is full of good connotations. If you
> incorporate "Ethernet" into your sound bite, you will inflame the
> Ethernet biggots of the world, dilute your message, and cause confusion.
>
> The phrase I have heard to describe RPR is "A resilient access method
> optimized for data packet transfer on ring topologies." If you want
> to throw in a catchy buzzword, replace "data" with "IP". I believe that
> this phrase captures the "value add" of RPR without positioning it as
> a competitive threat to Ethernet.
>
> To my knowledge, there are two aspects of RPR which relate to Ethernet:
>
> 1) RPR will provide a convenient way to transport 802.3 (including v2
> Ethernet) packets without any format conversions. This is goodness.
> It is a benefit to customers, and it is non-threatening to 802.3.
>
> 2) RPR will include several physical layer options, including one or
> more which are based on the 802.3 1 Gigabit and 10 Gigabit physical layers.
> This is also goodness, and also non-threatening to 802.3.
>
> You can emphasize the "value added" aspects of RPR
> (resiliency and ring topology support) without mentioning 802.3 at all.
> You can also talk about the commonality with 802.3 in a positive light
> which the 802.3 community will endorse and support.
>
> My point in all of this is that you can position RPR as either a
> competing or complementary technology. I suggest that you will be
> better off if you chose the complementary route. It's better to
> have the rest of the industry singing along with you in harmony than
> it is to have them shouting you down.
>
> Howard Frazier
> DomiNet Systems