Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

use case



All,

 

The use cases that came out of last meeting show various example deployments and starts to nail down the RoE-functionality.

I find it equally important to explicitly state the assumptions made on the underlying Ethernet network.

No good to design an RoE-function that doesn’t have a network to support it (and vice versa).

 

Examples:

•             What are the networking tools supposed to be used (such as 1588, SyncE, “not” GNSS, 802.1Q or TSN?, etc.)

•             What are the parametric requirements of the network (we can start out with qualitative statements)

•             The use case ppt shows one switch here and there – is that the limit? How flexible does the network have to be? What is the delay limit and how is/can this be budgeted?

•             Is this a peering or overlay arrangement ? I mean, do we foresee that RoE frames are somehow processed (e.g. monitored) on the path, or is the path completely transparent? The answer to this may impact the type/size of time stamp used.

 

Thanks,

Lars

 

(Lars Ellegaard, Princ. Eng,

Vitesse Semiconductor)

 

-----Original Message-----
From: stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
Sent: 17 February 2015 18:05
To: STDS-1904-3-TF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: call#1 minutes

 

Quick minutes and the slides I used attached. Note that I added one more slide to list all function combination without any network drawn into the picture.

 

 

Start:

                ~8AM PST - ~8:46AM PST

 

Present (sorry if I missed someone or mistyped the name):

                Pedro Batista

                Jouni Korhonen

                Bomin Li

                Peter Turnbull

                Philippe Sherier

                Steinar Bjoernstad

                Zakaria Tayq

                Kevin Bross

                Peter Ashwood-Smith

                Satory Matsushima

 

Discussion:

                The call concentrated on agreeing the baseline and assumptions for

                the CPRI mapper and RoE encapsulation/decapsulation functions

                and their placement in the system.        

 

                The attached powerpoint concludes the combinations for functions.

                It should be noted that the mapper also contains the RoE encap/decap

                function. However, the RoE encap/decap can be deployed as standalone

                function (assume that RE and/or REC are the "native" RoE compliant

                devices).

 

                The mapper & encap/decap functions can be part of the switch,

                RE, REC or be standalone frontends or "sidecards".

 

                We aim to define 1:1 translation between CPRI frame format and

                native RoE encapsulation.

 

                CPRI rates 1 to 7 are of interest (because the use 8B/10B line

                coding).

               

Next steps:

 

                * Look into the RoE header itself.

                * Agree on the basics for the AxC to RoE flow mapping e.g. only

                   one AxC per Ethernet packet etc.

                * Agree RoE encapsulated packet properties e.g. whether the

                   payload always has static size (after the flow/link has been

                   established) etc.

                * Study how CPRI rates affect RoE encapsulated packet sizes..

 

 

                Contributions are welcome.. I'll send out the next agenda next week.

 

--

Jouni Korhonen, Ph.D, Associate Technical Director CTO Office, Networking, Broadcom Corporation

O: +1-408-922-8135,  M: +1-408-391-7160