Conference 7.286::fddi

I too am interested in DEC's plans for FDDI-II. FDDI-II lends itself to 
the electronic office/campus, where the traditional computer (ethernet)
and telephone (PBX) network wires get replaced by FDDI's fibre-optics. The 
goal is for each user to have an integrated workstation/telephone connected to
FDDI-II. The concept of the telephone extension is replaced with a 'user id'.
You dial the user_id and the telephone rings wherever he/she is logged in!!

Okay, so this is a few years off yet. But the Europeans already have some
collaborative projects on the go, looking into just this kind of 
application. The market for FDDI-II products I think is smaller (zero right
now) than that of FDDI-1. But since FDDI-1 traffic can co-exist with 
FDDI-II's circuit-switched data on an FDDI-II ring, what chance
the standards bodies deciding to encourage people to drop FDDI-1 only 
development??? (Any FDDI-II node can work in 'FDDI-1 compatability' mode. If 
just one node on a ring is FDDI-1 only, no FDDI-II-capable node can operate
in FDDI-II (hybrid) mode.)

Are we looking at FDDI-1 and FDDI-II compatibility issues with our 
current chipset??? Is anyone looking at the feasability of FDDI-II
silicon? Do we have prototype FDDI-II hardware in the labs?

Jim Chapman, RE02-GH3, DTN 830-4653

    To be honest, I see FDDI-II going nowhere fast.
    
    Not that there's anything _wrong_ with it, per se, but it fails to
    justify itself competitively.  Its function is to provide both voice
    and data capability over the same medium.  Why?  Within a campus,
    there's generally a PBX providing the voice, and beyond the campus,
    there's usually no way to run the private glass needed for FDDI-II.
    FDDI was designed for a LAN, and LANs are not for voice.  Ask ZTEL.
    
    But what really will make FDDI-II fail is DQDB (802.6).  That attacks
    the same problem -- putting voice and data on the same medium -- but
    begins by decoupling the MAC from the PHI.  So you can run DQDB over
    telco facilities (E3, T3, SONET, etc.) at whatever speed is available
    in your geography, provided it's fast enough.  It then divides its
    bandwidth into isochronous (voice) and arbitrated (packet data) chunks.
    DQDB isn't quite as efficient for data as FDDI, but the telcos are all
    behind it, since it fits nicely into their transmission plant, and it
    will work nicely between sites scattered over a 100 km virtual ring.

So who is a driver of this draft standard?  I guess the PBX vendors will 
welcome this and some customers from voice side seem to be willing to use 
FDDI as a corprate backbone for data as well as voice,which means that FDDI 
is a PBX-to-PBX link in a buliding or campus.

Isn't  Digital a member of HRC committe?

Regards,
Kenji 

The guy who is technical contact for the HRC standard is Michael Teener. 
I'm not sure if he's the right person to contact for general enquiries about
members etc, but he'll probably know who is. His address is:-

Apple Computer Inc
3535 Monroe
Santa Clara Ca 95051
Tel: (408) 974-3521

I'm afraid I don't know if Digital is represented on the committee, but I 
certainly hope we are! Other companies represented include various 
PTT's and computer giants, etc etc.

Regards,

Jim Chapman

It would NOT be a good idea for various "random" Digital people to contact
Michael Teener and start talking about FDDI-II.  In general for issues
relating to the FDDI standards, and in particular for this one, you must
go through the Digital people reponsible for dealing with the standards 
and let them take it further.

If you want to ask FDDI-II (or general FDDI) standards questions, ask
Bill Hawe.  Do NOT ask Michael Teener.

	paul