North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
PPP over SONET (RFC-1619)
- From: William Allen Simpson
- Date: Thu Mar 21 01:56:58 1996
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Shikhar Bajaj)
> Other than the SprintLink design Vadim mentions above, what other
> alternatives are emerging for high bandwidth IP transport? Is anyone
> implementing PPP over SONET (RFC 1619)?
I am aware of 2 vendors implementing PPP over SONET, and at least one
public RFP that has been bid and accepted from one of those vendors.
I am not under non-disclosure to either vendor, but would prefer that
they disclose themselves. It seems silly to answer a public bid (last
year), and still claim "non-disclosure".
RFC-1619 is a Proposed Standard, and may change based on the
implementation experience of the vendors as it goes to Draft Standard.
The only problem discovered so far is that some PTT equipment vendors
did not implement the SONET Loss of State (LOS) test requirement of 2.3
micro-seconds (119 unchanging zero/one bits at OC3), and instead
implemented 73-bits, the minimum from G.958 for a badly designed timing
recovery circuit. Many vendors are currently 'going around' Bellcore
by applying proprietary solutions to problems and convincing the RBOCs
that it doesn't matter if they are in long term partnerships.
ISO -- pick a standard, any standard.
This, in turn, may require an extra scrambling to be required. Not a
big hardware commitment, though, but a serious annoyance.
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2