| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | 
| 
 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----- 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  |