RE: [10GBASE-T] Clauses 22 and 45 (was EFM OAM...)
Hello,
I think this email somehow got sent to us by mistake.
Regards,
Robert
---------------------------------------------------
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word">
When we did 802.3ae, we
did choose not to move all C22 registers in C45, but we did create
"similar" locations for bits and registers. So although
we don't need to bring all of C22 into C45, there will be a number of
registers required in C45 that will be similar to those found in
C22. If those registers and bits have "similar" locations
again, then the ability to use C45 for technologies based upon C22
becomes easier.
Cheers,
Brad
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Jonathan Thatcher
[mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com]
- Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 12:20 PM
- To: Warland, Tim; pat_thaler@agilent.com; Booth, Bradley;
stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
- Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] Clauses 22 and 45 (was EFM
OAM...)
- Don t forget that access to C45 registers will be possible through
C22 via additions made in EFM.
-
- What is the value of moving all C22 into C45 if the same interface
can read both register sets already?
-
- Didn t we (802.3ae) decide not to do this when we created C45
registers in the first place? What has changed?
-
- jonathan
-
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Warland, Tim
[mailto:warlt@emba.uottawa.ca]
- Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:13 PM
- To: 'pat_thaler@agilent.com '; 'bradley.booth@intel.com ';
'stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org '
- Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] Clauses 22 and 45 (was EFM
OAM...)
-
-
- For 10GBaseT etc, there should to be changes to clause 45 to
- support autonegotiation. However I don't think that
clause
- 45 requirements should be applied retro-actively to clause
22.
- We don't want people to have an either/or, we need to
be
- specific. As such, 10GBase* would use clause 45
exclusively,
- and clause 45 may reference clause 22 or add the
functionality.
- In summary, I am suggesting two different register maps
and
- one form of addressing.
- Tim Warland
- -----Original Message-----
- From: pat_thaler@agilent.com
- To: bradley.booth@intel.com; stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
- Sent: 3/25/03 6:56 PM
- Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] Clauses 22 and 45 (was EFM OAM...)
- Brad,
-
- (I changed the subject to better reflect the current topic)
-
- <snip>
- The alternative is to move all the Clause 22 functionality into
- registers in a Clause 45 device (xxBASE-T PCS?) so that everything could
- be managed through that register set.
-
- Is it better to have two different register maps to access management
- information for a 1000BASE-T device depending on whether it is packaged
- with a 10GBASE-T device or not, or is it better to keep one register map
- per PHY type and have ICs supporting old and new PHY types support two
- forms of register addressing?
-
- <snip>