re: Resilient Packet Ring TechnologyThe vendors at the meetings have stated, clearly, multiple times, that interoperability is not a concern because customers don't desire it. The comparison is if you had a next-gen sonet ring (say, SmartEdge), you wouldn't stick someone elses ADM in the ring.
re: Resilient Packet Ring TechnologyPacket transport at different levels of the network is best carried out at a level/layer appropriate for that part of the network. That is, layer-3 for some of the network and layer-2 for other parts.
I've been active in the 802.3ah EFM group and believe me, I know what a handcuff .1D compliance can be!
re: Resilient Packet Ring TechnologyMy basic frustration is that RPR was poised to be a really good standard for the metro and sub-metro space, but is now much less useful.
I've been involved with an ethernet-over-ring layer-2 switchimg product with spatial reuse since 1999 (on the market since '97), so I can claim to know a bit about the space.
Operating at layer-2 is the right thing in some cases, and not in others. I do not feel that making bridging work with spatial re-use is 'optimizing' the standard for bridging- its simply making it do what the working groups charter says it is supposed to do. I feel there's a good chance the overseeing body in the IEEE may reject the draft for this reason- the group has not met the charter.
re: Resilient Packet Ring TechnologyHave we forgotten that the chair of the IEEE .17 working group works for Cisco (L3 interest only)? Have we forgotten the vice-chair is the head of the RPR alliance, and is a consultant working for... who was that, luminous (L3 interest only)? Have we forgotten that Cisco bought a silicon vendor that was working on a non-Cisco friendly approach to RPR, to quash their opposition and their votes? Have we not even noticed that access to the IEEE working group discussion reflector has been restricted, something VERY unusual in the IEEE? There were other ways to deal with the spam problem on the message board...
re: Resilient Packet Ring TechnologyI guess group members have insisted on no-interoperability requirement because while they all argue and fight about standard issues related to RPR, none of them want to change their box. Currently Cisco, Luminous, Lantern, Nortel, etc. all have their own versions of RPR, and none of them want to change their box design. So I guess the FUD factor is mitigated by creation of IEEE802.17 RPR document that will sit on desk but no one will follow for quite some time.
re: Resilient Packet Ring TechnologyThe customer looks upon the standardization as a kind of good-housekeeping seal of approval. Its an assurance that the protocol and associated methodologies are well-thought-out, don't meet a narrowly-focused need, and it lets the customer have a good idea what's going on inside the box no matter whose box it is. In short, it reduces the FUD factor.
I don't share the opinion that interoperability is not important- this was the attitude stated at the working group meetings.
re: Resilient Packet Ring TechnologyI don't get it. If interoperability is not a concern, why bother about having a standard - let everyone do things in different ways?
re: Resilient Packet Ring TechnologyOn standards...My understanding is that standards are needed to link together rings. Folk don't expect to mix different vendor's kit on an individual ring.
The comparison is if you had a next-gen sonet ring (say, SmartEdge), you wouldn't stick someone elses ADM in the ring.
I've been active in the 802.3ah EFM group and believe me, I know what a handcuff .1D compliance can be!
I've been involved with an ethernet-over-ring layer-2 switchimg product with spatial reuse since 1999 (on the market since '97), so I can claim to know a bit about the space.
Operating at layer-2 is the right thing in some cases, and not in others.
I do not feel that making bridging work with spatial re-use is 'optimizing' the standard for bridging- its simply making it do what the working groups charter says it is supposed to do.
I feel there's a good chance the overseeing body in the IEEE may reject the draft for this reason- the group has not met the charter.
Have we forgotten the vice-chair is the head of the RPR alliance, and is a consultant working for... who was that, luminous (L3 interest only)?
Have we forgotten that Cisco bought a silicon vendor that was working on a non-Cisco friendly approach to RPR, to quash their opposition and their votes?
Have we not even noticed that access to the IEEE working group discussion reflector has been restricted, something VERY unusual in the IEEE? There were other ways to deal with the spam problem on the message board...
Correct me if I'm wrong here, people.
Its an assurance that the protocol and associated methodologies are well-thought-out, don't meet a narrowly-focused need, and it lets the customer have a good idea what's going on inside the box no matter whose box it is.
In short, it reduces the FUD factor.
I don't share the opinion that interoperability is not important- this was the attitude stated at the working group meetings.
Is that right?