RE: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
Hi All,
My understanding of the straw poll was that a UniPHY was preferred for a
0-10% "premium" only. However, at more than a 10% "premium", separate LAN
and WAN PHYs were preferred.
The "LAN PHY Only" and "WAN PHY Only" received the lowest support.
In order to facilitate a successful straw poll, the term "premium" was not
specifically defined.
Regards,
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Bechtolsheim [mailto:avb@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 8:30 AM
To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; wthirion@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
Roy,
the question is do we need to create two separate PHY standards
because of a 3% difference in transmission efficiency.
If you look at the results of the Albuquerque straw poll,
the majority of 802.3ae appears to answer this question with "no".
Andy
----- Begin Included Message -----
From wthirion@xxxxxxxxxxxx Wed Mar 22 22:45:48 2000
From: Walter Thirion <wthirion@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:25:02 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-3-hssg-approval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-SMTP-HELO: ruebert.ieee.org
X-SMTP-MAIL-FROM: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
X-SMAP-Received-From: outside
X-SMTP-PEER-INFO: ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]
As opposed to the UniPHY being an attempt to shoehorn the LAN PHY into the
WAN PHY, I think the UniPHY is a great attempt to standardize the pieces
that are similar between the two PHYs thereby reducing the effort.
Walt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 1:51 PM
> To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx; HSSG
> Subject: Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
>
>
>
> Rich,
>
> The original compromise was to have separate LAN and WAN
> PHYs. Now a group
> of people is trying to compromise on the compromise by
> compromising the best
> features of both of the separate PHYs in a continuing attempt
> to justify an
> 8B10B precoding to everything else by calling it another
> name. This is the
> same problem that was had with the "hari" proposals. The "UniPHY" as
> proposed is nothing more than the original 10.00 Gb 8B10B LAN
> PHY attempting
> to "shoe horn" itself into the WAN PHY and being an additional 3% less
> efficient doing it.
>
> I know that you have an emotional attachment to 8B10B. I
> know that at least
> one large LAN vendor has already done an ASIC using 8B10B out
> of the MAC.
> Not using 8B10B does not preclude the LAN vendor from having
> his LAN PHY
> based on block encoding, 8B10B or 64B/66B; while allowing the
> WAN vendors
> from having a non-8B10B solution. Please do not presume that
> one solution
> will be best for all implementations.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 12:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
>
>
> >
> > Roger,
> >
> > The problem we're having is that the leading proposals for
> the LAN, WAN
> and Uni
> > PHY's are all proposing putting different things on the
> wire. This doesn't
> help.
> > Therefore, the UniPHY may be the "compromise" solution
> since it would
> result in
> > one definition of what's on the wire.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
> >
> > --
> >
> > Roger Ronald wrote:
> > >
> > > If you ask a question that only considers benefits and
> not costs, the
> answer will be
> > > skewed and (IMHO) fairly meaningless.
> > >
> > > Is one PHY better than two? Sure.
> > >
> > > Is one PHY better than two if the cost for the part is tripled.
> Absolutely not!
> > >
> > > How about if having both PHY capabilities increases the
> power budget by
> a factor of
> > > 50% over each individually?
> > >
> > > If a part can meet the standards for operating in the
> mode of operation
> that
> > > the vendor chooses to support, it should be acceptable.
> It should not be
> unacceptable
> > > just because it might be "better" if it could also do
> other things.
> > >
> > > If someone wants to make a LAN only PHY, why not let them?
> > > If someone wants to make a WAN only PHY, why not let them?
> > > If someone wants to make a UNI PHY, why not let them?
> > >
> > > Standards groups (again IMHO) should define standards, not
> implementations. I.e.
> > > define what is on the wire, not how it gets there.
> > >
> > > RR
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 4:41 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Bruce,
> > > >
> > > > Well said! This was also my interpretation of the
> survey results. If
> there were
> > > > only one question on the survey, UniPHY vs. separate
> LAN and WAN PHY,
> I believe
> > > > that the survey results would be the same (i.e.
> strongly in favor of a
> UniPHY).
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Rich
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Bruce Tolley wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > At 08:33 AM 3/14/00 -0600, Roy Bynum wrote:
> > > > > > I think that the original compromise and
> > > > > >the objectives as stated are correct, there needs to
> be seperate
> LAN and WAN
> > > > > >PHYs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Roy:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think in the first part of your statement you hit
> the nail on the
> head. Goal #9 (Define two families of PHYs) was a
> > > compromise that came out of several meetings that was aided by the
> bridge diagram originally proposed by Howard Frazier.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many folks have since expressed displeasure with the idea of a
> bridge but the picture gave the members of the study group a way
> > > to understand and bound the problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > The goal of two PHYs agreed upon in York was as much political
> statement as it was a technical statement. There was a strong
> > > feeling up to the meeting in York of the need to limit
> the problem,
> define the goals, and get on with the work.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was always clearly stated that the goals were not
> written in
> stone and we might come back to revise them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given the basis of the findings from survey conducted
> by Jonathan, I
> conclude that there is strong support among the members of
> > > the task force to seriously investigate the concept of the UniPHY.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruce
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
> > > > Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
> > > > nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
> > > > 2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
> > Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
> > nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
> > 2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com
> >
> >
>
----- End Included Message -----