Re: Please Clarify Doubts regarding RGT & RNC

[Zhi-Wei Lin <zwlin@lucent.com>]

Hi Vishal,



> To understand this, let's consider the setting up of an STS-3 SONET
> channel (which is transparent
> only at the path level, so that line and section overheads are not to be
> preserved across SONET equipment), and see what happens in the various
> cases.
> In every case, the signal type = STS-1, and the RNC = 3.
> 

So, in your example, for:

1 STS-3: RNC=3, RGT=0
3 STS-1: RNC=3, RGT=4 (bundle)

3 STS-3: ??? How would you signal this? Not supported?

1 STS-3c: RNC=3, RGT=2 (contiguous standard) or 3 (contiguous arbitrary)
1 STS-4c: RNC=4, RGT=3 (contiguous arbitrary)

==> 3 STS-3c: ??? How would you signal this? Not supported?

1 STS-7v: RNC=7, RGT=1 (virtual)

==> 7 STS-7v: ??? How would you signal this? Not supported?


If the identified signals are really not supported, then it would seem
that there is some inconsistency and maybe (?) not well organized fields
that arbitrarily supports certain combinations and not others...

Am I correct? Do we need to fix this to make it consistent in terms of
supporting "like" signal types?


Zhi