Talk:Synchronous Ethernet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as Low-importance).
 

Definition of NE[edit]

The Synchronization architectures section starts using the abbreviation NE, but I could find it defined anywhere. (I did a find-on-page for "(NE)" with no matches.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdimpson (talkcontribs) 19:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like that comes from [1]. Not defined there either. It looks like we may also have a copyright issue with some of the text and diagrams. ~KvnG 13:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Kvng is right - those images appear to have been copied - not to mention I question the accuracy of the one which mentions SONET and SDH. NE is a standard abbreviation in the telecom world: Network Element. It refers to most any equipment in the network which manipulates the data (so switches, routers, SONET/SDH nodes, etc). I don't believe it would refer to things like DWDM systems (or any other optical switches or mux's).—Mrand TalkC 21:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Confusion[edit]

I disagree with the statement that Synchronous Ethernet devices must also support Power over Ethernet. This is not correct. Perhaps there was some confusion with the requirement to support the Ethernet Synchronous Messaging Channel (ESMC) defined in ITU-T recommendation G.8264 and which is based on the use of IEEE 802.3 Organizational Specific Slow Protocol (OSSP)

To me it looks like that refered to the IEEE 1394 proposal, which used the same name from consumer electronics manufacturers, not the ITU-T recommendation which seems a different group (phone companies). Will try to clarify with citations. W Nowicki (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

For what the thing is?[edit]

It is absolutely unclear a rationale behind the topic. I understand *how* it works, but couldn't got answer for "*Why?*" and "*For what?*" questions. Avesus (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added a link in the lead to Time and frequency transfer. Does that help? ~KvnG 13:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)