RE: [PWOT] draft-anavi-tdmoip-01.txt
"Motty Anavi" <motty@radusa.com> Wed, 07 March 2001 20:13 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA21028 for <pwot-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:13:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA08058; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:09:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA08029 for <pwot@ns.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:09:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailman.radusa.com (mailmain.radusa.com [208.148.179.115] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA20743 for <pwot@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:09:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 123 (mottispc.radusa.com [208.148.179.72]) by mailman.radusa.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id FKC51MBM; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:13:24 -0500
From: Motty Anavi <motty@radusa.com>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com>
Cc: pwot@ietf.org, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.co.il>, Schwarzbauer Hanns Juergen <HannsJuergen.Schwarzbauer@icn.siemens.de>
Subject: RE: [PWOT] draft-anavi-tdmoip-01.txt
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 15:07:54 -0500
Message-ID: <NEBBKJPHCLKELBGJCKOIIELECCAA.motty@radusa.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010306161349.03b6be98@viva.vivacenet.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwot-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwot-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <pwot.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: pwot@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Andy, There are some differences that can be overcome by existing mechanisms. We would add more on the technical steps and corrections that can be made to make IP/UDP a suitable transport. -- Cheers, Motty > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 4:25 PM > To: Motty Anavi > Cc: Andrew G. Malis; pwot@ietf.org; Yaakov Stein; Schwarzbauer Hanns > Juergen > Subject: RE: [PWOT] draft-anavi-tdmoip-01.txt > > > Motty, > > My primary concerns with AAL1 and AAL2 are just that they were designed > assuming that they are run over ATM, and thus there are assumptions > regarding the layer below them that IP/UDP may not meet, at least without > support from diffserv and perhaps other mechanisms, including > MPLS. Compensations for the differences of functionality between ATM and > IP/UDP need to be made explicit in your draft. > > Thanks, > Andy > > --------- > > At 3/6/2001 03:18 PM -0500, Motty Anavi wrote: > >Hi Andy, > > Thank you for your comments. First of all, let me clarify that the > >purpose of the document was to propose a high-level guidelines for a > >solution. It did not go in to the technical details. > > Having stated that, we fully intend to go over a much more detailed > >technical solution. Our assumption was that it was preferable to > present a > >high level view and concentrate on the requirements, so that we could > >establish a work group charter, and drill down later. > > > > We're also not assuming any specific infrastructure in place > that would > >create undue constraints on the implementation of the > interworking function. > > > > As for the specific issues you raised regarding the draft: > >1. Clocking issues - While this is not referenced in the draft directly, > >non-synchronous timing recovery is can be handled through the clocking > >mechanism. Adaptive clocking can be used for that. > >2. QoS - As an interworking function, the protocol should allow for the > >transporting layer to distinguish and prioritize the TDM traffic > over lower > >priority traffic. As such, mechanisms allowing prioritization and > >differentiation should be supported. We would add a section > dealing with QoS > >interaction. We shouldn't consider QoS requirement of any > underlying layer, > >but rather provide a mechanism for that layer to prioritize the time > >critical data using it's own mechanisms. > >3. AAL1 + AAL2 assumptions - I agree that additional facilities should be > >outlined for the exact compensations that are to be made for > AAL1 and AAL2 > >to be more efficient, however, the crux of the matter is the use of a > >pre-existing standards infrastructure in interworking function to provide > >the basis for a more detailed implementation. > >4. Use of RTP - We are not proposing using RTP. The overhead is > quite large, > >considering we can get the RTP clocking benefits through the existing AAL > >structures. > > > >We do consider this draft a good solution and don't consider > this just as an > >informational draft. > > > >Hopefully, this will clarify our approach to this draft and also serve to > >enhance your understanding of TDMoIP. > > > >Thanks again for your comments. > > > >-- Cheers, Motty > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 12:26 AM > > > To: Motty Anavi > > > Cc: pwot@ietf.org; Yaakov Stein; Schwarzbauer Hanns Juergen > > > Subject: Re: [PWOT] draft-anavi-tdmoip-01.txt > > > > > > > > > Motty, > > > > > > > This draft proposes a simple way of transporting TDM > > > circuits over IP. > > > >It can be found on the IETF web site at: > > > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-anavi-tdmoip-01.txt > > > > > > > >I would appreciate any comments you might have. > > > > > > I agree that it's very simple, but it seems to have skimped on > > > many of the > > > issues and details that have been discussed previously in > > > draft-boyle-sts-ip-00.txt and > draft-malis-sonet-ces-mpls-03.txt, such as > > > non-synchronous timing recovery, synchronous justification > events, outage > > > signaling, efficiency, and interactions with Internet traffic > engineering. > > > > > > In addition, AAL1 and AAL2 also make a number of assumptions > based upon > > > their usage above ATM, such as insured cell sequentiality and > particular > > > jitter and loss bounds, that need to be made explicit if you > > > attempt to use > > > them over IP rather than ATM. I would be interested in hearing > > > if you are > > > aware of their successful use in non-ATM environments. > > > > > > My final comment is that your text is very unclear regarding > the use of > > > RTP. Its use is discussed in section 2, but not in section 5. > > > Is it used, > > > or not? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Andy > > > > > > ======== > > > > > > At 3/5/2001 12:22 PM -0500, Motty Anavi wrote: > > > >FYI, > > > > > > > >-- Cheers, Motty > > > > > > > >Motty Anavi |900 Corporate Dr. > > > >RAD data communication |Mahwah, NJ 07430 > > > >Dir. of Product Management|(201)529-1100x213 > > > >e-mail: motty@radusa.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >pwot mailing list > > > >pwot@ietf.org > > > >http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwot > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Andrew G. Malis Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com phone:408-383-7223 > Vivace Networks/2730 Orchard Parkway/San Jose, CA 95134/fax:408-904-4748 > http://www.vivacenetworks.com > _______________________________________________ pwot mailing list pwot@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwot
- [PWOT] draft-anavi-tdmoip-01.txt Motty Anavi
- Re: [PWOT] draft-anavi-tdmoip-01.txt Andrew G. Malis
- RE: [PWOT] draft-anavi-tdmoip-01.txt Motty Anavi
- RE: [PWOT] draft-anavi-tdmoip-01.txt Andrew G. Malis
- RE: [PWOT] draft-anavi-tdmoip-01.txt Motty Anavi