Re: Long distance links
Rich,
I am not writing that 10GbE end systems be managed by SONET/SDH network
management standards. I wrote that trying to use 10GbE data switches as part of
the transmission service systems would not meet the standards of the commercial
services systems. The suggestion of putting a 10GbE switch in as a regenerator
does not meet the security, operations support, or network management
requirements that are in place for commercial transmission equipment. This is
something that IP based data people normally do not have to deal with. It is
easy to understand why they would not realize why a 10GbE data switch would not
be used as a commercial service transmission regenerator. I was simply
attempting to explain to them, with as few words as possible why this was so.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
MCI WorldCom
Rich Taborek wrote:
> Roy,
>
> You're making a very good point. There is NOT much of a difference in
> overhead to transport management information the SONET way and the Ethernet
> way. However, 10 GbE twould transport MORE payload than would SONET AND it
> requires less overhead to transport managment information AND it would do so
> in a more open, standard and user friendly fashion AND it would be
> compatible with ALL previous Ethernet and Network Management applications.
>
> So what exactly is your rationale for managing things the SONET way for 10
> GbE?
>
> Best regards,
> Rich
>
> --
>
> Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> > Rich,
> >
> > The processing between a WAN compatible PHY with minimal operations
> > support will have perhaps less than 1% additional active processing over
> > a LAN only PHY that has no operations support. How much will that add
> > to the cost of the WAN compatible PHY over a LAN only PHY? How much
> > will it add to the available market of the interface?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
> > MCI WorldCom
> >
> > Rich Taborek wrote:
> >
> > > Brad,
> > >
> > > I completely agree with you. I was only pointing out that the SILICON
> > > GATE COUNT argument for an OC-192 PHY vs. a straigtforward 10 GbE PHY
> > > (simple 10X speed-up of 1 GbE PHY) is probably not effective because
> > > its such a small piece of the total 10 Gbps PHY cost.
> > >
> > > I agree that there are significant additional overhead processing
> > > costs incurred in a LAN which is forced to meet all of the
> > > requirements of a WAN PHY.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Rich
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > "Booth, Brad" wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Rich,
> > >>
> > >> I agree that there are a lot of other things that can impact the
> > >> cost other than silicon gate count. If all other components of the
> > >> two systems were equal, the WAN would still cost more (in silicon or
> > >> in processing cycles) than the LAN due to the requirements to
> > >> process the overhead.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Brad
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Rich Taborek [SMTP:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > >> Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 1:12 PM
> > >> To: HSSG
> > >> Subject: Re: Long distance links
> > >>
> > >> Brad,
> > >>
> > >> That's (cost) a dangerous pedestal to get on. The cost of a
> > >> multi-gigabit PHY is primarily governed by its opto-electronics
> > >> and associated high-speed and Tx/Rx electronics such as the Tx
> > >> Laser Driver and Rx Photo Diode Pre-Amplifier, Trans-Impendence
> > >> Amplifier, Post Amplifier, whichever are applicable times their
> > >> quantities and in consideration of the level of integration.
> > >>
> > >> At multi-gigabit rates, the connection between Tx/Rx
> > >> opto-electronics and associated Tx/Rx electronics are critical
> > >> and packaging gets expensive depending on the architecture of
> > >> the PHY.
> > >>
> > >> I believe that, in general, silicon gate count for any
> > >> multi-gigabit PHY gets lost in the noise.
> > >>
> > >> My argument is that the architecture of the SONET OC-192 WAN
> > >> PHY is far from the cheapest possible for 10 GbE based on its
> > >> requirements for the highest speed opto-electronics and
> > >> associated high-speed and Tx/Rx electronics. I don't want to
> > >> see all 10 GbE connections encumbered with this unnecessary
> > >> cost.
> > >>
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >> Rich
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> "Booth, Brad" wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to address the cost issue. In a silicon gate
> > >> count, the MAC for a WAN or a LAN should be the same
> > >> cost. As for the PHY, a WAN PHY is going to be more
> > >> costly than a LAN PHY if you look at the silicon gate
> > >> count. The reason for the WAN PHY being more expensive is
> > >> that the PHY is not only an encoder, it is also a framer.
> > >> Where a LAN PHY would perform encoding/decoding and
> > >> translation from serial-parallel, the WAN PHY must perform
> > >> all that plus add overhead and perform framing, which adds
> > >> complexity and cost.
> > >>
> > >> I feel that a WAN PHY and a LAN PHY are required so that
> > >> LAN implementations are not burdened with the added cost
> > >> and complexity of overhead and framing that are required
> > >> to utilize the installed WAN OC-192 base.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Brad
> > >>
> > >> Brad Booth
> > >> Austin Design Center
> > >> Intel Network Interface Division
> > >> (512) 407-2135 office
> > >> (512) 589-4438 cellular
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Roy Bynum [SMTP:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > >> Sent: Sunday, September 05, 1999 4:57 PM
> > >> To: NetWorthTK@xxxxxxx
> > >> Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > >> Subject: Re: Long distance links
> > >>
> > >> Ed,
> > >>
> > >> I have seen and heard a lot of issue about the WAN
> > >> compatible MAC/PHY being more
> > >> expensive than a LAN only MAC/PHY. Has anyone done any
> > >> actual cost analysis?
> > >> Having done development work before, even if it was some
> > >> time ago, the ability to
> > >> use existing technology and chips was always less
> > >> expensive for initial
> > >> deployment. A lower frequency signal encode and decode was
> > >> always less expensive
> > >> over the long term. Semi-static information processing
> > >> was always less expensive
> > >> was less expensive than active information processing.
> > >> Unless it is legacy WAN
> > >> vendors trying to protect their control and high profit
> > >> margins for WAN
> > >> interfaces, I can not see why a WAN compatible PHY should
> > >> be more expensive than a
> > >> LAN only PHY at the same laser powers. I have seen
> > >> nothing to support it that
> > >> assumption. As a customer, I would like to see the WAN
> > >> comparable costs to the
> > >> LAN interfaces. As a customer, I would like to be able to
> > >> take the same type of
> > >> interface and use it where ever my implementation
> > >> architecture requires. As a
> > >> customer I would like to be able to have unmodified 802.3
> > >> frames delivered from
> > >> any one place to any other place with the least expense,
> > >> in both equipment and
> > >> support costs.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you,
> > >> Roy Bynum
> > >> MCI WorldCom
>
> --
>
> 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