... | @@ -411,9 +411,11 @@ prevails: |
... | @@ -411,9 +411,11 @@ prevails: |
|
it means that the end applications can accept some data loss.
|
|
it means that the end applications can accept some data loss.
|
|
Therefore, some data loss due to data corruption is acceptable.
|
|
Therefore, some data loss due to data corruption is acceptable.
|
|
- if seamless redundancy is required, static network redundancy
|
|
- if seamless redundancy is required, static network redundancy
|
|
(independent paths) is needed.
|
|
(independent paths) is needed.
|
|
WR takes advantage of assumed one-to-many characteristics of the
|
|
|
|
critical data in :
|
|
WR takes advantage of assumed one-to-many characteristics of the
|
|
|
|
critical data in :
|
|
|
|
|
|
- ultra-fast forwarding: for critical data the forwarding data base
|
|
- ultra-fast forwarding: for critical data the forwarding data base
|
|
needs to be verified only against VLAN which is much faster then MAC
|
|
needs to be verified only against VLAN which is much faster then MAC
|
|
lookup
|
|
lookup
|
... | @@ -422,5 +424,13 @@ prevails: |
... | @@ -422,5 +424,13 @@ prevails: |
|
- no need for sophisticated stream reservation
|
|
- no need for sophisticated stream reservation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using FEC has a negative effect on the data delivery latency (probably
|
|
Using FEC has a negative effect on the data delivery latency (probably
|
|
not acceptable by the most stringent AVBg2 requirements). However,
|
|
not acceptable by the most stringent AVBg2 requirements), however:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- in the idea where enhanced STP and FEC are used to provide seamless
|
|
|
|
critical data stream over dynamically redundant network - FEC and
|
|
|
|
eSTP are decoupled
|
|
|
|
- the idea where enhanced LA and FEC are used (LA and FEC are not
|
|
|
|
decoupled). However, the enhancement to LA is very similar to static
|
|
|
|
redundancy (many different ways proposed: SPB, VLANs). Therefore,
|
|
|
|
instead of eLA AVBg2's idea could be used and FEC on top of this.
|
|
|
|
|