[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: UnderStanding ULE

Actually part of the study we did with ESTEC was to look at those differences/advantages; the FP for the study is end of next week so we're busy writing those differences. We will have both hardware advantage/disadvantages and protocol level differences. I'm ready to help also write the document if that is considered helpful by the group.
 
Marie-Jose
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:10 AM
Subject: UnderStanding ULE

Dear all,

Might be I?m a bit late on ULE discussion, though I have few quick questions hit my mind, hope anyone can help me

1)     Is there any document available already to differentiate DSMCC and ULE, advantages and disadvantages, why we use ULE instead of DSMCC. If not already available, I?ll volunteer to prepare one from my understanding of both the MPE types.

Doubts on ULE Draft
-------------------------------
1.     Section 4.2 Maximum size of SNDU should be defined, according to draft it says 15 bits, means 32K. If it has to be 0x7FFF it is an End Indicator. Hence please define Max Size for SNDU used for any payload.
2.     Destination Address field: Section 4.5, Well to provide MAC level filtering as similar to DSMCC, we have this support. But nowhere it is mentioned as MAC Destination Address. Might be misleading to IP addressing since Ipv6 is 6 byte addressing.
3.     Scenarios for Bridged SNDU Encapsulation. For example, we have DVB-RCS terminal with one Ethernet Interface and one DVB interface(TX and RX). When a packet has to be routed from Ethernet Interface to DVB interface, here in Bridged SNDU Encapsulation comes into picture when the DVB-RCS terminal is configured as L2 SWITCH. Did we mean that in this case, or when we are using GRE and receive an L2 payload for GRE, which decapsulates the IP & GRE  header and forwards the payload directly into DVB interface with ULE encapsulation.

Thanks and Best Regards,
William