Re: [Fwd: Re: 9.584640]
Thomas,
There are times when the "cheap" solution is more expensive. That is why,
up until recently, only telephony grade services were used for building to
building communications. When the cost of downtime becomes greater than
cost of the difference between the "cheap" solution and the "better"
solution, "cheap" is too expensive. I am not proposing the imposition of
high cost processing on the simple direct connected LAN. I am suggesting
that some silicon based L1 fault tolerance could save 10GbE customers' a lot
of money in lost revenue, lost services, lost up-time, etc.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
MCI WorldCom
Thomas Dineen wrote:
> GentlePeople:
>
> 2) Point #4 in my previous note is NOT TRUE. This means that more of
> SONET
> signaling and framing would be imposed upon 10 GbE. This may include
> requirements to operate at one or more of the EXACT line rates supported
> by
> OC-192, SDL packet formatting, etc. This goes way beyond the simple HSSG
> speed
> objective and only pushes the requirement to map Ethernet to SONET
> downstream to
> the slower speed Ethernet feeds. I view this as tantamount to declaring
> that 10
> GbE "IS" SONET OC-192.
>
> This would result in an enormous cost increase which would be a
> disaster for
> the project. Keep it simple, keep it cheap.
>
> Thomas Dineen