... | ... | @@ -364,27 +364,21 @@ The enhancements to current IEEE 802.1AS include |
|
|
- control of throughput from nodes which are not supposed to send
|
|
|
too much data (if any)
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- end list -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Time Aware Blocking Shaper:
|
|
|
- some problem when cut-through for non-critical traffic -- we
|
|
|
don't know the size of the frame
|
|
|
|
|
|
## AVBg2 vs. WR
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Synchronization-wise
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both solutions, WR and AVB, work only over WR/AVB-compatible devices but
|
|
|
provide interoperability with standard Ethernet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Synchronization-wise
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main difference is the usage of SyncE and single fiber in WR. AVBg2
|
|
|
bridges will have to be time aware but this does not translate into
|
|
|
syntonization. WR requires all WR-devices to be syntonized which is an
|
|
|
option in AVB. The efforts to support network redundancy and speed-up
|
|
|
reconfiguration seem to be inline in WR and AVB. There is an apparent
|
|
|
need in AVBg2 to find a solution for (semi-)automatic link asymmetry
|
|
|
compensation. Although WR provides solution for this, it does not need
|
|
|
to be favored by AVBg2 (due to single fiber usage).
|
|
|
bridges are time aware but this does not translate into syntonization.
|
|
|
WR requires all WR-devices to be syntonized which is an option in AVB.
|
|
|
The efforts to support network redundancy and speed-up reconfiguration
|
|
|
seem to be inline in WR and AVB. There is an apparent need in AVBg2 to
|
|
|
find a solution for (semi-)automatic link asymmetry compensation.
|
|
|
Although WR provides solution for this, it does not need to be favored
|
|
|
by AVBg2 (due to single fiber usage).
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Critical-data-wise
|
|
|
|
... | ... | @@ -392,9 +386,9 @@ In short, WR is a corner case of AVBg2 where all the end stations in a |
|
|
logic network (VLAN) register to the same stream, thus a stream in WR is
|
|
|
defined by VLAN. WR adds sophisticated Forward Error Correction (FEC),
|
|
|
at a cost of latency deterioration, to spare network components
|
|
|
(switches) and still provide fault-tolerance of critical data stream to
|
|
|
component failure. This is because WR it is foreseen for large scale
|
|
|
networks.
|
|
|
(switches) and still provide undisturbed critical data stream in case of
|
|
|
component failure (seamless redundancy over dynamically redundant
|
|
|
network). This is because WR it is foreseen for large scale networks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WR does not foresee dynamic stream reservation -- it is assumed that
|
|
|
there are two kinds of data: (1) critical (so called Control Messages,
|
... | ... | |