RE: [PWE3] TDM draft comparison

[Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@Rad.co.il>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thomas [mailto:stephen.thomas@waterscreek.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 7:59 PM
> To: Tim.Frost@zarlink.com; pwe3@ietf.org
> Cc: Sasha Vainshtein; Yaakov Stein
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] TDM draft comparison
> 
> 
> I'm not enough of a TDM or ATM expert to provide credible 
> details, but it seems like it ought to be possible to create a protocol 
> header that is sufficiently flexible to accommodate both encapsulation
methods. 
> Conceptually, include the ATM-style fields in the protocol 
> header but add a flag that indicates whether they are used (or set them to
zero for 
> non-use). There is a lot of precedent for this (see UDP 
> checksum), and, ultimately, it allows the market to decide whether or not
the 
> additional capabilities are justified.

Not only is it POSSIBLE, I have suggested this on multiple occassions,
and held a reserved FORMID value (FORMID=0) in the TDMoIP control word 
to accomodate this.

Unfortunately, for reasons I can not fathom,
there has been no response to this suggestion.

Since someone else has brought this up,
I am now going to add the CESoPSN option to the next update of my draft.

Since the new Martini header now leaves me only 4 bits for the control word,
I propose the following instead of the present text in Section 2.4

FORMID    payload type
 0000   raw (unadapted) frames
 0100   AAL1 unstructured
 0101   AAL1 structured 
 0110   AAL1 structured w/ CAS
 1000   AAL2
 1111   HDLC for CCS signaling

Y(J)S

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3