sdh-sonet >> STM-1 TU12 numbering scheme

by bendavissdh » Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:37:59 GMT

Hello Huub et al.,

I was a bit confused about the numbering scheme of TU12 within STM-1.

Foreword: G707 specifies how columns should be numbered (this is
paragraph 7.3.9 and Appendix II ): this KLM to column mapping is clear
to me.

What is not clear, is how TU-12 can be numbered from 1 to 63, and what
is the relation to KLM notation ?
That is, I am searching for a rule which would say:
1st TU12 is KLM (1,1,1)
2nd TU12 is KLM(?,?,?)
and so on up to 63th TU12.

I browsed the recommandation, but I don't feel very confident with my
own interpretation (BTW personal interpretation is a bad sign when
reading a recommandation..;-) ).
My own interpretation has two options:

option 1) The end of paragraph 7.3.13 specifies a kind of order
(Tributary#1 is TU12 1-1-1, Tributary#2 is 1-1-2, and so on). Is this
the rule I am looking for ?

option 2) Table 7-1 specifies a "TS#=timeslot number". Is this the
rule I am looking for ?
Thanks for any help.

Ben


sdh-sonet >> STM-1 TU12 numbering scheme

by bendavissdh » Fri, 17 Oct 2008 01:19:05 GMT


Thanks Huub.
So figure 7-27 is clear: I can use the TS# as an index in the table
oc TU12 [1,63].


However, I forgot to mention the TU12 are directly mapped to VC4 (not
through VC3).
So 7.3.12 is not applicable (this applies to VC3) in my case.

I still remain confused about the note in 7.3.13.
Is this applicable to TU12 directly mapped to VC4 (not through
VC3) ?


Ben



sdh-sonet >> STM-1 TU12 numbering scheme

by bendavissdh » Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:06:50 GMT

Hi again Huub,

I am confused by this sentence: I thought
- K was the index of TUG-3 in AU-4
- L was the index of TUG-2 in TUG-3
- M was the index of TU-12 in TUG-2 ?
Did I really mis-understood the recommandation ?

Ben


STM-1 TU12 numbering scheme

by bendavissdh » Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:49:06 GMT



Hi Huub,

thanks for your reply.

Sorry to bother you at that time.. Wasn't it time to go home ? :-)

Back to note in 7.3.13:
Tributary#2 is KLM(1,1,2), but KLM(1,1,2) is timeslot number#22,
right ?
Do most companies rather use "tributary port#" or "time slot#" to
convert KLM to a so kind of "readable" [1-63] index ?
Is there a genrally admitted rule ?
Or does any supplier do what he wants, provided the KLM at frame level
is always OK ?

Ben


STM-1 TU12 numbering scheme

by bendavissdh » Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:19:19 GMT

OK, I understand the consensus is:
Trib#1 <=> KLM(1,1,1)
Trib#2 <=> KLM(1,1,2)
Trib#3 <=> KLM(1,1,3)
Trib#4 <=> KLM(1,2,1)

Thanks very much Huub !

Ben


Similar Threads

1. Leviton T568A scheme

I have a leviton SMC panel which the insturctions says to use T568A.
So that means my wall outlet jacks will be wired up using the T568A
scheme.

I am also making my own patch cables, for both at the SMC and from wall
jack to computers.   if I make the cables with T568B standard (straight
through)  will it cause signal to be degraded at all?

2. Ethernet encoding scheme

3. LinkSys BEFSR81 and different IP Scheme?

This is actually a two tiered problem.  
I have to FTP some rather huge files to a friend who has an FTP server set
up on his DSL connection.  When I was on Comcast on a Linksys BEFSR81
(older from before the Cisco buyout) I was able to FTP in with no problem,
start the transfer and go to bed.  By morning it was just about done.  Now
I moved out of that place, bought another BEFSR81, but this one is newer
and is branded with Cisco/Linksys.  I can log into his FTP server with no
problems, but when i start the transfer, nothing goes.  I go back to my
parents on Comcast and it works fine.  But here I am on Prolog/ptd.net and
I get squat.  I tried passive and normal.  Then on IRC somebody set up his
ftp server and it worked perfectly with passive.  I believe my friend has
a Linksys router as well - from what I understand two Linky's don't play
nice together.  
Somebody suggested I change my static IP scheme for the internal (LAN)
side from the factory 192.168.1.xxx to 192.168.2.xxx.  I tried that, BUT
once I do that the machien I changed no longer has connectivity.  I didn't
touch the DNS, WINS, or gateway settings.  Once I switch it back to the
1.xxx scheme all is well.
What the heck am I doing wrong?

4. IP Address Scheme for Multiple DMZs on Multiple PIXs

5. IP addressing scheme suggested for redundant servers

Hi friends,

Just a question on redundant servers. The configuration is something
like this:

1. Central Office router------->Service Provider Cloud router --->
Router at Branch offices / Factories

2. Central office router ---> L3 switch ---> Servers (SAP, Mail,
Intranet etc)

There is a DR setup required now for the site where the central office
router is housed.
The proposed setup is something like :

Central site ---------> SP cloud ---------> DR Site

        Normal operation : Central office router --> SP Cloud
--->Remote office router
        During disaster at central office site : DR router ---->SP
cloud---> Remote office router

Now if there are redundant servers at DR site, what will the IP
addressing scheme of these servers be? Can they have the same IP
addresses as the primary servers or should they have different IP
addresses. Sorry, if this is a dumb question. But this is a new setup
for me and hence I am posting it.


Thanks a lot
Gautam

6. Do we use the classful address scheme yet?

7. PIX versioning scheme

Hi,

i don't get the PIX software versioning scheme...

there is a 7.0.4 ED (which i've currently installed), then some interim 
releases 7.0.4.x. In  parallel there's now a 7.1.1 ED which is also a 
maintenance release.

Why are there still newer 7.0.4.x interim releaes then the maintenance 
release 7.1.1?

Regards
Markus

8. Conceptual question: Reasoning behind private subnetting scheme?