RE: Hari and train-up sequences
Just for the record, I'm not advocating AN, rather, I was springboarding on
a previous mail in the thread stating that if AN exists, remote fault
signalling should be retained (or as you've pointed out improved).
JR
At 11:31 AM 11/18/99 -0800, Booth, Bradley wrote:
>
>What was specified, worked. What was not specified, had problems. Funny
>how that happens. :-) But seriously, the auto-negotiation mechanism as
>specified in the standard worked correctly. It was the things outside the
>scope of the standard (i.e. management layer functions), that screwed up on
>things like duplex and remote fault. So you are correct in saying that the
>mechanism isn't flawed, but its use is. That's the crux of question, does
>the HSSG foresee any use of this information. If not, we don't need the
>mechanism.
>
>Brad
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: JR Rivers [SMTP:jrrivers@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 1:14 PM
>> To: Booth, Bradley; HSSG
>> Subject: 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
>>
>