Subject: RE: Submission of an internet draft for unstructured TDM e mulation

From: Shahram Davari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 07:50:06 -0700

Daniel,
 
I was about to make the same comment. Fixing the size of the payload to some specific values seems implementation dependent. In theory, the unstructured mode should work with any payload size, because no frame or structure boundary is required to be recognized. 
 
My suggestion is to not determine the payload size in the draft and just mention that both sides must agree (or be configured) on the payload size to be used.
 
Yours,
-Shahram

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Feldman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:06 PM
To: Sasha Vainshtein; PWE3 WG (E-mail)
Cc: Danny McPherson (E-mail); Ron Cohen (E-mail); Sim Narasimha (E-mail); Stephen Casner (E-mail); Stewart Bryant (E-mail); Tom K. Johnson (E-mail); 'Riegel Maximilian' (E-mail 2); Yaron Raz (E-mail); Ashwin Moranganti (E-mail); Mark Townsley (E-mail); Andrew G. Malis (E-mail); Shahram Davari; Alex Trigub; Alex Feldman
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Submission of an internet draft for unstructured TDM emulation

        Gentleman: well done! 
        This is indeed a breakthrough. My only question is the following: 
In section 4.3.1 you say: 
"Payload of a single UCESoPSN packet SHOULD contain one or more native 
circuit frames" 

and later: 

"In addition to the "native circuit frame" mode, the packet payload size 
MAY be an integer multiple of 47, without regard to the native circuit 
frame." 

        Since there is no SHALL written, what happens if an implementation (for example, an Axerra one) decides to go for natives frames, while another (for example, a RAD one) decides to go for multiple of 47 bytes. What happens to interworking!?!?!

        Thanks in advance, 
                Daniel Feldman 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Sasha Vainshtein [ mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:09 PM 
To: PWE3 WG (E-mail) 
Cc: Danny McPherson (E-mail); Ron Cohen (E-mail); Sim Narasimha 
(E-mail); Stephen Casner (E-mail); Stewart Bryant (E-mail); Tom K. 
Johnson (E-mail); 'Riegel Maximilian' (E-mail 2); Yaron Raz (E-mail); 
Ashwin Moranganti (E-mail); Mark Townsley (E-mail); Andrew G. Malis 
(E-mail); Shahram Davari (E-mail) 
Subject: [PWE3] Sumbission of an internet draft for unstructured TDM 
emulation 

Dear colleagues, 

Discussions on emulation of TDM circuits that took 
place during and after the Yokohama meeting have 
shown that emulation of unstructured circuits 
is by far a less contentious issue when compared 
to that of "structured" ones (n*DS0) while 
being of sufficient interest to many of the WG 
participants. 

This understanding triggered an effort to provide 
a (hopefully!) non-controversial specification  
for encapsulating unstructured E1, T1, E3 and T3 
circuits as pseudo-wires. The resulting document, 
edited by Yaakov Stein (RAD) and myself, has been just 
sent for posting at the IETF Web site as a NEW draft. 

While it is  processed by the Internet Drafts Editor, 
you can access it at the following location: 

ftp://ftp.axerra.com/sasha/draft-vainshtein-pwe3-ucesopsn-00.txt <ftp://ftp.axerra.com/sasha/draft-vainshtein-pwe3-ucesopsn-00.txt>  

Your feedback will be highly appreciated. 
  
With best regards, 
                                   Sasha Vainshtein 
email:     [email-masked] 
tel:       +972-3-7659993 (office) 
           +972-8-9254948 (res.) 
           +972-58-674833 (cell.) 
_______________________________________________ 
pwe3 mailing list 
[email-masked] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>  

--- 
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. 
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ( http://www.grisoft.com <http://www.grisoft.com> ). 
Version: 6.0.406 / Virus Database: 229 - Release Date: 10/21/2002