RE: Why not have both?
Paul Bottorff:
Would you mind answer Dae Young Kim's question? The similar question was
asked before, and I believe, you handled that question.
Thanks,
Ed Chang
NetWorth Technologies, Inc.
EChang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dae Young KIM
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 5:27 AM
To: Edward Chang
Cc: rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxx; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Why not have both?
One question on the number.
According to my calculation, with OC192
- The Gross rate is 9.95328 Gbps
- The SPE rate is 9.621504 Gbps
- The user data rate is 9.510912 Gbps
Where does the number 9.548 come from? We've been talking about the pure
user
payload, so I'd pick 9.510 Gpbs Ethernet NRZ rate.
I should be mistaken somewhere. Would you please correct me?
Edward Chang wrote:
> Roy:
>
> Thanks for proposing a simple WAN/PHY specification. We can move on from
> here to generate a complete specification for HSSG.
>
> I like the fact that your WAN/PHY is based on OC-192C signaling standard,
> which is widely implemented in the marketplace - Light SONET.
>
> Your proposal, surely, is a simple, bare-bone overhead, which I think will
> do the job.
>
> Nevertheless, if there is any other proposal, we should also discuss it.
>
> Also, it is the time to start deal with those issues: 9.548...Gbps NRZ
> scramble data, data rate conversion scheme (10.000/9.548.Gbps), framing,
> recovered clock characteristics (should meet SONET jitter-transfer,
> jitter-tolerance, and jitter-generation? Probably not), clock frequency
> tolerance (100 ppm?), data jtter characteristics, BER, fault reporting,
> SERDES, target distance (40 km max?), media......etc.
--
Dae Young KIM
http://ccl.chungnam.ac.kr/~dykim/