Talk:UPC and NPC

	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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Re: too technical for most readers to understand[edit]

I've tried to improve the article a bit; however, if you look at the pages that reference this one, e.g. Traffic policing, Leaky bucket, and GCRA, these are all of a highly technical nature. Hence, the probability of a non-technical reader stumbling onto this page by accident must be fairly small. Assuming, therefore that most readers that are actually likely to try to understand this page have some technical bent, or they'd have given up long before getting here, then a Janet and John approach is probably going to be more off-putting, in terms of the number of readers so off-put, than an overtly technical one. As a result, I would council against too much effort to make it intelligible to all readers.Graham.Fountain | Talk 10:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPC and NPC in Ethernet[edit]

The full gamut of functions and services for Ethernet is beyond my ken, but I see that there are some parallels with ATM and AFDX here. Specifcially, there are switches from at least Cisco and Intel (Fulcrum Microsystems FM4000 Bali and FM6000 Alta chips) that incorporate support for per VLAN flow control, either policing or shaping or both. There are also protocols like Audio Video Bridging and, possibly, Forwarding and Queuing for Time-Sensitive Streams, and Stream Reservation Protocol, that must involve basically the same functions, in the same ways as BAE Systems' Deterministic Ethernet Fault Tolerant Network (DEFTNet) concept does, to achieve tolerance of faulty users (hosts etc.). It may also be possible to argue that the actions of the switches in Time Triggered Ethernet, in detecting and blocking mistimed transmissions, constitute UPC/NPC (though why anyone would ever want to do this in the time domain rather than the frequency domain, considering the draconian limitations it imposes on transmission scheduling, remains a mystery to me). Hence, I believe there needs to be a Uses in Ethernet section, but I don't feel that I'm in a position to write this myself. Any offers? Graham.Fountain | Talk 10:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]