Re: Final draft of response to the OIF

[Huub van Helvoort <hhelvoort@chello.nl>]

Hello Ben,

You wrote:

> I proposed a simple (and I think technically sound) solution to
> item #1 and saw no objections, however the answer has not changed.
>
> I do not understand the reason for different encodings for
> VC-4 and STS-3c SPE.  I think they should be the same, unless
> there is a technical need to distinguish them.

If there is agreement that they should be the same, we should
also look at higher order contiguous concatenated signals:
i.e. STS-12c == VC-4-4c, STS-48c == VC-4-16c, STS-192c == VC-4-64c
STS-768c == VC-4-256c

> I also do not understand the RCC=1 NCC=1 encoding, since the rule
> contained in the current RFC actually makes more sense. 

However indicating the number of signals concatenated in NCC
makes your first objective impossible: STS-3Xc == VC-4-Xc
so there will always be a difference of a factor 3 between
STS and VC-4 encoding

> If there is
> only
> one signal element, there is no contiguous concatenation, by definition.

In fact a single signal is always contiguous concatenated  ;-)

> So I fail to see the usefulness of these encodings.

NCC = 1 would normally not occur, so it could be used for
this specific case of SONET signals transported in an
SDH world, or SDH signals transported in SONET land.
And if these signals would not cross borders the value
NCC > 1 can be used.

> Regards,
> Ben

Cheers, Huub.

--
================================================================
             http://members.chello.nl/hhelvoort/
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...