RE: Simple solution to terminate the discussion about SONET versus SD H

[Heiles Juergen <Juergen.Heiles@icn.siemens.de>]

Eric,

tricky question.-)

I say YES (except for the VT-3 as already explained by Deborah)


and will face the complains.

Regards

Juergen



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mannie, Eric [mailto:Eric.Mannie@ebone.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:17 AM
> To: Stephen Trowbridge; 'Heiles Juergen'; 'mvissers@lucent.com'
> Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); 'vijay@umbc.edu'; ccamp-wg; 
> 'sob@harvard.edu';
> 'Kireeti Kompella'
> Subject: Simple solution to terminate the discussion about 
> SONET versus
> SD H
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> There is an easy way to stop definitively this discussion 
> based on technical
> facts:
> 
> Stephen, Juergen and Maarten, please tell us: today, are the frame
> structures and all the bytes in the SDH and SONET overhead completely
> identical, used and interpreted in the same way, is the 
> monitoring exactly
> the same ? In particular, if I provision and operate an SDH 
> circuit/LSP is
> this fully identical to a SONET circuit/LSP from *all* point 
> of views ?
> 
> PLEASE ANSWER BY YES OR NO ONLY. Other explanations are not 
> needed at this
> stage.
> 
> If the answer is yes: SONET is totally identical to SDH.
> If the answer is no: SONET is not the same as SDH.
> 
> I think that without that answer we cannot take any 
> *technical* decision on
> this mailing list and at the IETF.
> 
> Thanks to answer. 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Eric
> 
> ps: feel free to forward this e-mail to any ITU-T mailing list if a
> confirmation is needed.
>