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

RE: [rprsg] T&D Document for Ballot

Bob C,
 
We know that 802.17 must perform bridging.  The PAR clearly states, and 802 rules clearly state, that we must support 802.1D.  So I don't see a problem with using source and destination with regards to the network, and using ingress and egress with regards to the ring.
 
jl
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Castellano [mailto:rc@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 5:26 PM
To: Bob Sultan; stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [rprsg] T&D Document for Ballot

Bob,
 
The problem I see with changing the definition of source/destination from ring to network as they
relate to RPR ring addresses, presents a logical problem with respect to the PAR and whether
or not the 802.17 MAC can perform bridging.  If the source/destination addresses within the
header are general station addresses which represent station addresses beyond the local 802.17
ring then the 802.17 MAC shall have to perform a bridging function.  The RPR MAC is distinctly
different from an 802.3 MAC in that all traffic received by an 802.3 MAC is passed to the client. 
That is not the case for an 802.17 MAC which is managing two paths and has to decide when
to strip/copy packets along this path.  While I appreciate the desire to be consistent with
802 terminology, I believe there is a more fundamental issue at stake in keeping with 802
architecture.  Relative to the 802.17 MAC, source/destination need to be with respect to the ring.
 
Sorry, I did not catch this sooner.
 
        thanks,
 
        bob
 
 
Robert Castellano
Jedai Broadband Networks
rc@xxxxxxxxx
(732) 758-9900 x236
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bob Sultan
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 3:36 PM
To: stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [rprsg] T&D Document for Ballot

to T&D Ad Hoc Committee:

As we discussed at our last session in Portland, I revised the T&D document (using my judgment on items we did not have time to review during the meeting), and sent it on to John Lemon for proofreading and formatting for ballot.  John expects to be done today.  The document will be posted and a notification sent to the T&D group when the document is available for review.  The T&D group will have a short time to review the document before the working group is notified that the document is available for electronic ballot.   If we start the ballot this Monday night or Tuesday morning, this gives us a few days leeway to have the ballot complete by the time of the meeting.  The short review period should not be a serious problem since the document need not be error-free for the ballot.  Serious errors will be corrected and the document re-posted.  The 30-day ballot process will then be started.  John is checking now on the rules for the ballot.

One issue arose during editing of the document.  I found that we had defined the terms 'source' and 'destination' with respect to the ring.  I believe these terms should be defined with respect to the network (of bridged rings) in order to be consistent with 802 usage.  If, for example, we were to use either the Nortel double encapsulation bridging proposal or the FNC scheme proposed in March, I believe the 802.17 source and destination address fields should identify the 'end-to-end' 802.17 terminal stations (ie. not the ingress and egress stations on one particular ring.  So, I did change the definitions of source and destination accordingly, and I used the terms ingress station and egress station when referencing a particular ring.  Please let me know if you have any objection to this and I will change this back before the document goes out for ballot.

Comments?  Questions?
Bob