Talk:Synchronous optical networking

message: I'd like to see some mention of IPPM. 
171.71.81.83 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Intermediate Path Performance Monitoring

message: The STM frame has 9 rows and 270 columns. 
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.214.17 (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: STM Frame

message: I am not sure if this is default drawing style, but as the frame is transmitted row by row and not column by column, I would find it better if the 125uS were not given as a label for the columns but as a label for the rows, as the viewer might expect that label to symbolize a timeline of transmission.
139.18.247.116 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: STM Frame Image

message: The statement "For example, four OC-3 or STM-1 circuits can be agregated to form a 622 Mbit/s circuit designated as OC-12 or STM-4." is a bit misleading. Actually an OC-12 is not an encapsulation of 4 OC-3s as is implied. An OC-12 contains 12 STS-1s (OC-1 at optical level) and as such can carry 4 OC-3s, however each STS-1 is carried without any type of "wrapper" within the OC-12. I'm probably being overly picky but hey, you might as well make it as clear as possible.
"The current state of the art is the OC-192 or STM-64 circuit, which operates at rate of just under 10 Gbit/s."  The current state of the art is actually OC-768.
"It is defined by GR-253-CORE from Telcordia."
Isn´t it defined by ITU-T´s G707?
: The "agregated" is still there... why didn't you fix it? Fixed. Mga 03:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Digital Hierarchy

message: Suddenly in the text is the abbreviation "NE". What's that?
:Network Element BertK 18:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To keep the article readable for the average reader, who isn't steeped in our telecom acronym soup, I've changed "NE" to "network element" throughout the article.  As noted in MOS:ABBR, sometimes it's best to just spell things out. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NE? 

message: An anonymous user that has a decent editing history originally added three links to different Nortel systems that do SONET.  I removed those.  A different link has now been added back, again by the anonymous user, to a top level for all SONET systems at Nortel.  Do we want a list of vendors on the article at all?  If so, it will slowly go out-of-date as vendors merge, change names, go out of business, or new ones are created.  Having the list also invites more churn on the article.  Not only that, but it isn't a short list (Here is an incomplete list): 
Alcatel,
 
Anda Networks, 
Appian Communications, 
Cisco Systems, 
Coriolis Networks, 
ECI Telecom Communications, 
Fujitsu Network Communications, 
Internet Photonics, 
Lucent Technologies, 
Mahi Networks, 
Marconi, 
Nortel Networks, 
Photonic Bridges, 
RAD Data Communications, 
Sycamore Networks, 
Siemens ICN, 
Tejas Networks, 
Tellabs, 
Turin Networks, 
White Rock Networks
Or we could add several links to the ODP (dmoz.org), who actually attempts to be a directory.
Mrand 00:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equipment vendor listing? 

message: The discussion may continue above.
I vote for the split on the grounds that many readers want a clear definition of what makes SONET SONET. However, I think for those looking for the "Big Picture" and trying to develop a context, a very high-level comparison to SDH is helpful, if only because so many texts lump SONET and SDH into their three-page writeup of "high speed optical networks". Here's what I mean by "High Level":
SONET and SDH
SONET and SDH are both high-speed networks that are most commonly implemented on fiber. The North American and European approaches are similar enough that data can be exchanged between these different network technologies with suitable equipment.
                           	SONET                                                      	SDH
Created By                 	ANSI                                                       	ITU
Used                       	North America                                              	Europe
Name of Data Unit          	OC (Optical Carrier), STS (rare, for copper implemenations)	STM (Synchronous Transport Module)
Raw Bitrate of Lowest Level	OC-1 = 51.84                                               	STM-1 = 155.52
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.0.156.254 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2007
:What most people care about is the same in both SONET and SDH. Why not retitle this article "SONET and SDH" (or "SONET/SDH") with both SONET and SDH redirecting there, and then discuss their differences explicitly in sections, which could then be split out into seperate articles? jhawkinson 00:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: For crying out loud, the SDH hierarchy was defined for use over *copper* wire, not optical!
When SDH was defined, real use of optical fiber for communication was still the lab rats' wet dream, and Real Men used coax and microwave relays. Article needs splitting, badly. --Alvestrand 19:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When SDH was developped E4 (140 Mbit/s) was already deployed over (optical) fiber, and SDH was based on this experience. SDH has only one line signal defined for electrical transport: The STM-1 signal ES1, its companion optical is STM-1 OS1 and up STM-4, STM-16, STM-64 STM-256. The Electrical interface is used intraoffice and the optiacl interfaces are deployed interoffice. Huub v H 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting "optical" on SDH is a misnomer 

message: ICMP is not part of the network layer but transport layer according to Network layer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.226.228.16 (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not in Network layer article, and ICMP is a network layer protocol.  Slidersv (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICMP 

message: If it helps at all I came to this article to do some research and was struck by the number of times that  the terms SONET and SDH needed to be qualified. This does indicate to me the need for a split. If SONET and Euro SDH are subsets of a single SDH spec then it would seem logical to describe the top level and refer to subset differences as a separate section somehow; "compare and contrast" maybe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobGi (talk • contribs) 12:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that two different things are being described and it needlessly confuses things.  For example, the framing section seems to make it sound like SONET and SDH are completely different, when in reality, it has almost nothing to do with SONET vs. SDH.  What is being described is the difference between STS-1 and STS-3c (or STM-0 vs. STM-1).  Describing it in this way (in long-form text) doesn't do anyone any favors - it should be done in a completely different way - because the "framing" is identical between the two.  216.141.109.132 17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it is not "needless". Maybe just this section needs re-phrasing if it is confusing? Nothing is more scientific/encyclopedic than synthesis of knowledge. We need a few general articles, not a zillion articles about a separate tiny pieces of knowledge. --Kubanczyk 14:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naive User

message: I think all modern SDH equipment has SSM. So timing loops are not so badly sounds, as it described in article.
Not sure if this is the proper format, but I would like to link and maybe add content to the transmux article.  This is a persistent item of confusion when working with SONET to DS3 handoff between carriers.  Here is the link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmux
Thanks!
Burningclod 21:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SSM

message: I've never heard STS-3c called a basic unit in SONET, since it's really 3 STS-1s with concatenation indicators in the 2nd and 3rd STS1s.  Also, I'd say VC4 is the SDH basic unit, equivalent to an STS-3c, not STM-1.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mam711 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: basic units

message: are there any exams to be certified in designing the sdh networks......  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.62.97.23 (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certification 

message: This article (as well as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Carrier article) have got non-standard rates in the table.  ANSI T1.105-2001 Table 1 lists the only valid rates as OC-1, OC-3, OC-12, OC-24, OC-48, OC-192, OC-768.  Other than the oddball OC-24 they are all 4x multiplexed after OC-3.  Telcordia (ex-Bellcore) GR-253-CORE Issue 4 2005 concurs (but notes that OC-24 is only included for compatibility with T1.105).  ITU-T G.707 lists only STM-1, STM-4, STM-16, STM-64, and STM-256. There is no STM-8 (even though there is an OC-24), OC-96/STM-32 nor OC-1536/STM-512 so I'm going to remove them from the table. Just because some vendor may have made or proposed a non-standard rate is not reason to include them.  There is s lot of bogus information on SONET/SDH on the Web.  On the other hand, OC-3072/STM-1024 is the next logical rate for standardisation, so it should remain with a note to this effect. Jpgs (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SONET/SDH Rates 

message: I suggest that the article should be renamed to "SONET/SDH". In the literature, this is a common chapter title or book title. See Google Books: SONET/SDH (714 hits) and SDH/SONET (635 hits). Mange01 (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Much like nobody says "modulator demodulator," but rather "modem", everyone says SONET or SDH.  —Mrand Talk • C 21:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename proposal 

message: Some goofball has come in and changed much of the article to try to equate SONET with circuit switching. Seeing how the latest two generations of Ethernet now utilize SONET frames can we put this type of nonsense to rest?
Those unfamiliar with physical layer issues seem to believe that SONET is somehow at odds with TCP/IP (not knowing, of course, that it is Pcaket-over-SONET that is the almost universal transport for layer 3). This battle is over, if it ever existed, and we shouldn't allow a useful SONET article to be ruined by those who don't know the issues.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gea-141020 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's not go into a SONET vs Packet battle 

message: In the article intro it states "...and eventually other protocols such as TCP/IP and ethernet ...". The wording is misleading, since it implies that TCP/IP is an alternative to ethernet and that it is a protocol. Neither implication is correct.
Kingfisherway (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and I've updated the article accordingly during my copy edit. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TCP/IP is a suite, not a single protocol 

message: This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... The material being duplicated is in itself a 'fair use' restatement of technical standards published by various groups (ANSI, ITU, IETF, etc). These groups make the ratified standards freely available to the public to reference, and as this document itself is uncopyrighted, under fair use it should be permitted on Wikipedia.  ---TheDrew (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the CSD tag, thanks for the info. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion