Re: [rprsg] (Terms & Defn) In definitions of steering and wrapping s/b ringl ets instead of rings
Bob,
I do not believe that our definitions should be specific to the dual-ring case,
but should be general enough to include multi-rings wherever possible.
It was indeed my intent to allow the definition for wrapping to include the
possibility of switching a frame from a broken link on a ringlet to a non-broken
link on another ringlet traversing the same direction around the ring (think of
SONET 4-fiber BLSR protection switching, for examples).
Thanks,
Allan.
Bob Sultan wrote:
>
> 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