(resend) [rprsg] (Terms & Defn) In definitions of steering and wrapping s/b ringl ets instead of rings
(resent for archive)
_______________________________________________
Brian Holden PMC-Sierra, Inc.
3975 Freedom Circle, Santa Clara CA USA
+1.408.239.8123 Fax +1.408.492.9862
brian_holden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.pmc-sierra.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Holden
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 3:58 PM
To: stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [rprsg] (Terms & Defn) In definitions of steering and
wrapping s/b ringl ets instead of rings
Bob, Allyn,
Good changes.
A footnote off of "opposing ringlet" reading "or different ringlet
in the unstandardized case of multiple rings" might help add value
to the document without bogging it down with formal support for
multi-rings which we voted down.
Brian H.
_______________________________________________
Brian Holden PMC-Sierra, Inc.
3975 Freedom Circle, Santa Clara CA USA
+1.408.239.8123 Fax +1.408.492.9862
brian_holden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.pmc-sierra.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Sultan [mailto:Bob.Sultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 3:17 PM
To: stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx
Cc: Allan Pepper; Brian Holden
Subject: Re: [rprsg] (Terms & Defn) In definitions of steering and
wrapping s/b ringl ets instead of rings
Brian,
I agree with your corrections, but we probably need to correct these further.
Allan,
After seeing Brian's email, but before seeing your email, I made a nearly
identical correction. I omitted the words 'and link failures' as I assumed that
'ring topology' means 'current ring topology' and already includes any failed
links. Let me know if you disagree.
Wrapping is more interesting. In the case of a dual-ring, 'different ringlet'
and 'opposing ringlet' would have the same meaning. So, if the definition is
specific to a dual-ring, I prefer 'opposing ringlet'. I think you intended your
definition to be sufficiently general to cover the multi-ring case. The
definition would allow 'wrapping' by shifting frames from one clockwise ringlet
to another clockwise ringlet. This could be exactly what people have in mind for
wrapping on a multi-ring, but I'm not sure.
So, should our definitions be specific to the dual-ring case (and we could update
them if the standard includes multi-rings) or should they all be sufficiently
general to include the multi-ring case (and we could update them to make them
specific to the dual-ring case if multi-rings are not supported)? My bias is
towards describing the dual-ring case (but it is a bias).
If we define our terms based on a multi-ring, I think I would need some
understanding of how steering, wrapping, discovery, etc. are described in the
multi-ring environment. If someone thinks we should define terms general enough
for a multi-ring, can that person volunteer a description of how this works?
Bob
Allan Pepper wrote:
> I belive the term node should also be replced with station. Additionaly, the
> definition does not need to explain why the mechanism works. These changes
> would make the following definitions.
>
> steering: placement of a frame on a ringlet by the ingress station based on
> knowledge of ring topology and link failures.
>
> wrapping: the transit of a frame such that is is received by a station on one
> ringlet and re-transmitted on a different ringlet.
>
> Thanks,
> Allan Pepper
> Nortel Networks
>
> Brian Holden wrote:
> >
> > Bob, Group,
> >
> > In the definitions of Steering and Wrapping, the
> > word "ring" should be replaced by "ringlet" except in
> > the phrases "ring topology" and "node on the ring".
> > The phrase "node on the ring" could also be replaced
> > by "node".
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brian H.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Brian Holden PMC-Sierra, Inc.
> > 3975 Freedom Circle, Santa Clara CA USA
> > +1.408.239.8123 Fax +1.408.492.9862
> > brian_holden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.pmc-sierra.com