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
>