[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Final draft of response to the OIF



Concur with Ben and Huub. This is also why all current framer chips support both SONET and SDH. STS-3c == VC-4.
Greg B.


Mack-Crane, T. Benjamin wrote:

Dimitri,
The control plane is intended to control the data plane, not the naming of data plane signals in various standards. The fact that two names are used in SONET and SDH for the same data plane signal is not justification for creating two encodings in the control plane.
This should be a simple thing to fix, if we (CCAMP) are willing to fix it.
Regards,
Ben


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *From:* owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]
    *On Behalf Of *Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
    *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:53 AM
    *To:* Huub van Helvoort
    *Cc:* Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be; bertk@txc.com;
    dpapadimitriou@psg.com; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
    *Subject:* Re: Final draft of response to the OIF

    huub,

    > > > Standard contiguous concatenated STS-Nc SPE is actually
    STS-3c-Xc SPE
    > > > with N=3X and X=4,16,64,... which explains the coding with a
    STS-3c SPE
    > > > elementary signal and NCC=X. So we code the STS-Nc SPE and
    VC-4-Xc
    > > > identical (examples 3 and 9) but not their base signal ?!?...
    > >
    > > i refer you to section 7.3.1 of ANSI T1.105 - 2001 (aka SONET
    base spec)
    > > you will that your interpretation is not the one specified in this
    > > recommendation
    > >
    > > " Super rates services are mapped into and transported as
    STS-Nc SPE
    > > [N=3X there X = 1, 4, 16, 64 or 256]"
    >
    > Somehow you left out the last part between the square brackets:
    > "or SDH VC-4 or VC-4-Xc, where X=N/3]"
    >
    > This clearly means that an STS-3c == VC-4 == super rate of STS-1.

    indeed but we are not discussing this issue or put this
    "equivalence" under questioning (in fact this is reproduced in the
    signal type 6 definition) the RFC took as logic (control plane) to
    set the RCC value when the notation of the signal included a "c"
    we could have created yet another exception but we did not - for
    several reasons -


> > this is exactly what we used in RFC 3946


-- ================================================================

http://www.gironet.nl/home/idefiks/
http://members.chello.nl/hhelvoort/


    ================================================================
    Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...

============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================