RE: 10GE data rate?

["Bill St. Arnaud" <Bill.St.Arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Rich:

Excellent summary.  Under category 3 I would add 2 sub-categories:

3a.  Native 10GbE for the WAN that uses CWDM or DWDM directly and therefore
must have a modicum of signalling protocols "in-band"
3b.  Transparent 10GbE for the WAN, where the signalling is done in the
optical domain or out of band

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Rich
> Taborek
> Sent: June 23, 1999 4:18 AM
> To: nuss@xxxxxxxxxx; HSSG; HSSG Speed
> Subject: Re: 10GE data rate?
>
>
>
> In an early note to the HSSG Speed reflector, I summarized my view of all
> schemes discussed thus far to support the WAN at Ethernet rates
> of ~10 Gbps.
> I'll repost that summary here to make it available to the larger HSSG
> reflector. The three schemes I have come up with are:
>
> 1) Legacy: 10Gbps Ethernet switched/bridged/routed to Sonet. We
> simply need
> to specify a 10 Gbps PHY to make this fly.
>
> 2) SONET-based PHY: A new Ethernet PHY compatible with OC-192 SONET that
> connects directly to the Ethernet MAC, which runs at SONET OC-192 rates.
> This is the new PHY suggested by Paul. Looking forward, the next higher
> Ethernet speed variant would likely be OC-768.
>
> 3) 10 Gbps Ethernet WAN PHY: A new Ethernet PHY supporting WAN dark fiber
> and/or DWDM equipment, sans SONET. I believe that this is one of
> the options
> proposed by Bill St. Arnaud among others.
>
> My scheme (3) seems to correspond with Martin's (1) and (3) below and is a
> PHY variant which supports a data rate of exactly 10.0 Gbps.
> Other qualities
> of this PHY may include any or all of the following:
> a) Direct drive of long-haul dark fiber and/or DWDM equipment;
> b) Simplex and/or duplex channels;
> c) Standard Ethernet facilities for out-of-band signaling and cable plant
> management including MAC Control frames, Auto-Negotiation, and (I hate to
> even suggest it) Primitive Signaling using alternate "Idle"
> codes. Ethernet
> out-of-band signaling capabilities are actually more extensive than most
> protocols I'm aware of.
>
> (1) above seems supports the existing SONET infrastructure quite
> adequeately
> and allows high performance switch/bridge/router products to be implemeted
> in a manner of highest compatibility with the LAN and WAN.
>
> (2) sabove ignificantly affects the existing LAN market through
> its dictate
> of SONET speeds and other peculiarities not applicable to
> existing LANs and
> is a step in the wrong direction .
>
> (3) above takes Ethernet where no Ethernet has gone before and treads
> directly on the existing WAN infrastructure. This latter
> alternative will be
> difficult to go forward with also since the "LAN" folks consider it to be
> outside the scope of 802, and the "WAN" folks view it as a significant
> territorial encroachment. However, once (1) happens, the cost
> advantages of
> it will inevitably drive implementations and products based on (3).
>
> --
>
> Martin Nuss wrote:
>
> > Roy:
> > I wanted to get your expert opinion on a few issues that would be of
> > interest to me as we go forward in the standard:
> >
> > 1) do you really believe that we need to support all the WAN OAMP
> > features in 10GE?  I would rather prefer a light-weight 10ge protocol
> > that guarantees the lowest cost in the LAN, but make sure that it can be
> > wrapped easily into a WAN envelope to support all the WAN features.
> >
> > 2) at the last meeting, Paul Bottorff as well as Mike Salzman presented
> > approaches to a serial 10GE standard based on scrambling as opposed to
> > block coding.  Both of these could be used for a low-cost serial LAN
> > standard, and wrapped into WAN envelopes like SONET to provide WAN OAMP
> > features.  The 10GE data rate would have to be kept to around 9.6 Gb/s
> > to make that possible at the lowest cost.  Presumably, that would
> > accelerate the acceptance of 10GE in the WAN.
> >
> > 3) Alternatively, we could propose to allow for additional control
> > fields in the 10GE standard that duplicate the functions most important
> > for WAN apps.  This may be the cleanest solution, but it will require
> > 802.3 to venture into an area that it has not worried about before...
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Martin
>
> --
>
> Best Regards,
> Rich
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Taborek Sr.    Tel: 650 210 8800 x101 or 408 370 9233
> Principal Architect         Fax: 650 940 1898 or 408 374 3645
> Transcendata, Inc.           Email: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 1029 Corporation Way              http://www.transcendata.com
> Palo Alto, CA 94303-4305    Alt email: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>