Re: Issues concerning 10GbE speed standards

[Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rich,

You are correct.  The SONET/SDH "like" signaling would be more for the extended
distance PHY than the local one.  As to what subset of the SONET/SDH functionality
is minimal, I personally think that "B3", path BER, would be the first to look at.
(This seems to be something of a hot issue right now.)  As this progresses, vendors
will be able to differentiate their products by levels of operational support and
carrier level network and management functionality.  Time and market penetration
will tell on this.

Rich Taborek wrote:

> Roy,
>
> I interpret your desires/requirements for 10 GbE as follows:
>
> - Payload rate of 9,584,640,000 bps
> -  SONET/SDH signaling (to support a subset of the SONET/SDH operations support
> functionality)
>
> Is this correct? If correct, is there anything else.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rich
>
> --
>
> Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> > Walt,
> >
> > I do not specifically want to add the complexity of all of the existing
> > SONET/SDH functionality in 10GbE.  Even the SONET compatible POS router
> > interfaces do not implement true SONET restoration and operations
> > support functionality.  The ability to support a subset of the SONET/SDH
> > operations support functionality would greatly reduce the support costs
> > for extended link 10GbE.
> >
> > I am pointing out that the existing facilities install base for
> > commercial extended link services at 10Gb is based on SONET/SDH
> > signaling.  By leveraging that existing install base, the implementation
> > costs for extended link 10GbE can be greatly reduced in the commercial
> > services
> > market.  Those reduced costs will directly impact the magnitude of the
> > market penetration of 10GbE.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum,
> > MCI WorldCom
> >
> > (PS. Sorry for the delay in responding to your message.  I am still not
> > on the "speed" reflector.)
> >
> > Walt Thirion wrote:
> > ____________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Roy,
> >
> > Are you specifically advocating that 802.3 support not only the same
> > rate as Sonet, but that we also support:
> >
> > "common carrier operations and maintance support must be within the
> > protocol. SONET/SDH are the current, and most widely deployed
> > transport protocols within the common carrier domain."
> >
> > Walter Thirion
> > Level One Communications
> > 512-407-2110
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg-speed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg-speed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> > > Behalf Of Roy
> > > Bynum
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 20, 1999 9:34 AM
> > > To: Thirion, Walt
> > > Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; stds-802-3-hssg-speed@xxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Issues concerning 10GbE speed standards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Walt, et al,
> > >
> > > The issue of speed is one of economics.  The existing GbE
> > > standard does
> > > not allow for any operations support for the optical fiber facility.
> > > This makes GbE very expensive to maintain and support over a MAN/WAN
> > > environment.  The cost of ownership of GbE will prevent it
> > > from having a
> > > masive impact directly on the cost of MAN and WAN data
> > > communications.
> > >
> > > Common carrier protocols, such as DS1/DS3/SONET/SDH have
> > > operations and
> > > maintencance functionality incorporated in the overhead of the
> > > protocol.  DS1 and DS3 have a subcarrier that provides remote and
> > > reverse signalling outside of the transport "payload".  This allows
> > > carriers to troubleshoot and maintain remote systems without
> > > haveing to
> > > dispatch someone for every little issue.  In some respects,
> > > GbE fails to
> > > meet the 802.3 functional requirements for interoperation with common
> > > carrier systems.
> > >
> > > 1000BaseSX and 1000BaseLX are optical networking standards.  Whether
> > > this was the intention or even the perception of the 802.3 working
> > > group.  The working group did not include any support for
> > > operations or
> > > maintenance in the optical domain for this protocol.  The functional
> > > operations of copper LAN facilities are well understood by the 802.3
> > > working group, but when you get beyond multi-mode, 850nm, optical
> > > transport, it is no longer a LAN, it is a WAN.  Some will say
> > > that 30km
> > > is a MAN, not a WAN.  If you apply the same function processes
> > > distictions to optical systems that are applied to copper systems, you
> >
> > > will discover that a MAN is actually a WAN within a single central
> > > office domain. When I was actively working on Ethernet, when
> > > it left the
> > > building, it was no longer a LAN, it was a WAN.
> > >
> > > In order for 10000BaseX to support MAN/WAN systems within
> > > common carrier
> > > facilities, common carrier operations and maintance support must be
> > > within the protocol.  SONET/SDH are the current, and most widely
> > > deployed transport protocols within the common carrier domain.
> > > SONET/SDH use the transport overhead to provide that functionality.
> > > That functionality allows the common carriers to reduce the operations
> >
> > > and support costs for the fiber optic transport systems, and
> > > thus lower
> > > the overall costs passed on to the end users.  This will be
> > > the economic
> > > breaking point for 10GbE.  Can it directly support the fiber optic
> > > transmission system?  Is there any reason why it should not be able to
> >
> > > directly provide operations support for the optical fiber systems?
> > >
> > > A second economic issue of speed for 10GbE is one of
> > > utilizing existing
> > > technology and standards at the ~10Gigabit speed range.  A masive
> > > install base of facilities and support already exist for
> > > OC192/STM64 on
> > > a global scale.  Optical amplifers, signal and clock recovery
> > > regenerators, and other systems are already in place to carry
> > > OC192/STM64 signals in metropolitan as well as wide are networks.  I
> > > would not want to contemplate the economic impact of having to install
> >
> > > totally seperate technology to support 10GbE.  If it can not use the
> > > existing ~10Gb technology and facilities, Other than "dark
> > > fiber", 10GbE
> > > will have to be installed over a totaly new, and totaly seperate
> > > facilities.  Is there any reason why 10GbE should not support and make
> >
> > > use of the existing ~10Gb transport facilities?
> > >
> > > I hope that this message has not been too long.  As an employee of a
> > > common carrier company, I have a recognizable vested interest
> > > in looking
> > > toward 10GbE as a major economical alternative to existing
> > > data tranport
> > > technolgy, such as TDM or ATM.  I have almost 20 years of designing,
> > > installing, and supporting LAN, MAN, and WAN systems.  I have seen the
> >
> > > economics change as more self-supporting protocols and
> > > technologies have
> > > become available.  The key is to provide a protocol that allows remote
> >
> > > operations support, which reduces the number of "warm bodies" that are
> >
> > > required to support the systems.  This is what I am asking for.  Is
> > > there any reason why this can not be done?
> > >
> > >                                       Thank you,
> > >                                       Roy Bynum
> > >                                       MCI WorldCom
> > >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 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