RE: Hari and train-up sequences
If it didn't work, then it may not have been specified correctly. I
presume that most people were able to get 8b10b coding to work. I would
imagine that they also got other components of the autonegotiation process
(like link speed, duplex, etc) to work. If I'm correct, then it seems that
the mechanism isn't flawed, but rather its use :-)
JR
At 07:41 PM 11/17/99 -0800, Booth, Bradley wrote:
>
>JR,
>
>I agree that if it is done correctly, then signaling link faults via
>auto-negotiation is quite elegant. The problem lies in the fact that link
>fault (or remote fault) signaling was optional and it was sometimes
>misinterpreted by the implementor. Remote fault indication in the
>auto-negotiation base page was a source of numerous problems during the UNH
>IOL connectivity tests, as was it an issue during Microsoft certification
>testing. The concept behind it was great, but in practicality, it created
>more headaches than it was worth and most people abandoned it.
>
>Cheers,
>Brad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JR Rivers [SMTP:jrrivers@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 9:16 PM
> To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxx; rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; HSSG
> Subject: Re: Hari and train-up sequences
>
>
>
> One of the advantages to providing an "auto-negotiation" type
>signalling
> path is in signalling link faults.
>
> JR
>
>
>