RE: Hari as 10 Gig Fibre Channel
All/Len
I would vote for continuing the debate albeit with less accusatory rhetoric. I agree with Patrick. Roy has some good points.
> ----------
> From: Patrick Gilliland[SMTP:pgilliland@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 8:16 PM
> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Hari as 10 Gig Fibre Channel
>
>
> Rich,
>
> I have to agree with Roy. There is no inherent
> reason why the PMD interface should be a HARI.
> The best PMD interface for a 10GbE optical transceiver
> is a 10Gbit/s serial data stream.
>
> Only if one assumes there will be a multi-channel
> or a single multi-level channel PMD is an interface
> like this one necessary to discuss.
>
> Patrick Gilliland
> patgil@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 10:31 PM 11/28/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >Rich,
> >
> >Perhaps the NCITS TC T11 is the correct forum to standardize on Hari.
> Please remove it as a
> >specific functional standard within P802.3ae. Please make it possible for
> the people
> >working on the PHYs to apply the functional implementations that are
> needed for the specific
> >PHYs. According to the 802.3 model the PHY specific coding occurs within
> the PCS, not the
> >PMD. Applying Hari between the PMA and PMD violates that model!
> >
> >Hari is only a requirement for those people that decided on the PHY of
> choice before the
> >HSSG got a chance to vote on it/them, and jumped the gun on their ASICs.
> As far as I am
> >concerned those people can implement anything they want, as long as they
> do not make it part
> >of the P802.3ae standard.
> >
> >Right now several people are upset because I have challenged their
> perceived control of the
> >development of 10GbE. I have brought disorder where they thought that
> they had imposed
> >order, their order. They are correct. I challenged their perceived view
> of Ethernet as a
> >confined protocol, when they did not understand how Data Link protocols
> are used and what
> >makes them functionally different. They did not understand that the
> developers of GbE
> >brought the disorder first by crossing the boundary between confined LAN
> application and
> >unconfined WAN application.
> >
> >The application of Fiber Channel technology and functionality helped cause
> that disorder.
> >Most FC applications have response timing limitations (100x ms) at the
> application level,
> >which makes most FC implementations Local. Putting Fiber Channel under
> applications that do
> >not have those same response timing limitations removes the Local only
> limitation. FC is
> >designed for campus facilities, using privately owned fiber. The GbE
> people incorrectly
> >thought that they too were making GbE into a Local only protocol. They
> did not understand
> >that the full duplex nature of the original Ethernet, applied through
> 100mb 802.3 was what
> >made it truly Local only. Even the electrical full duplex 100BT can be
> used across a long
> >haul fiber system by putting it into an optical transducer. Full duplex
> 100FX has been used
> >across long distances with wavelength/power transducers. GbE is taking
> off as a leased
> >fiber WAN protocol, without service operations support.
> >
> >I am not the cause of the disorder here. The people that did not fully
> understand the
> >implications and applications of what they were doing are the cause of the
> disorder. Please
> >do not codify that disorder within P802.3ae.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Roy Bynum
> >
> >
> >
> >Rich Taborek wrote:
> >
> >> Earlier this week, NCITS Technical Committee T11, chartered with
> development of the
> >> Fibre Channel suite of standards, approved a project proposal to extend
> FC protocol to
> >> an operating speed of approximately 10 Gbps, following the lead of the
> IEEE 802.3
> >> committee. The project proposal, entitled FC-PI-2 to identify the
> documentation effort
> >> associated with the 10 Gig FC project, was approved by T11 Letter Ballot>
> on Monday,
> >> November 22, 1999 by a vote of Yes63-No02-NotVoting10 (4 yes ballots
> included comments).
> >> Further details and comments can be found via the T11 web site @
> http://www.t11.org/ by
> >> clicking on "ballots", then "closed ballots", then "T11 Ballot - FC-PI-2
> PP approval".
> >> The next step is to forward the project proposal to NCITS, T11's parent
> body. The
> >> FC-PI-2 project proposal can be found @
> >> ftp://ftp.t11.org/t11/admin/project_proposals/99-521v1.pdf.
> >>
> >> An introductory meeting to kick off the 10 Gig FC project will be held
> during the next
> >> T11 Plenary week on December 8, 1999 at the Peppermill Hotel in Reno,
> NV, USA, during
> >> the joint session of the T11.2 (FC Physical Layer) and T11.3 (FC
> Interconnects)
> >> committees. This meeting is scheduled for 1:00-2:00 PM. Further T11
> Plenary week details
> >> can be found by clicking on "meetings" from the T11 home page.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> Rich
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Richard Taborek Sr. 1441 Walnut Dr. Campbell, CA 95008 USA
> >> Tel: 408-330-0488 or 408-370-9233 Cell: 408-832-3957
> >> Email: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxx or rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>