Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
Andreas,
The real question is, do we need a LAN PHY that is ~10% slower than the
10.000 Gigbit transfer rate that was so important in June, July, September,
and November of 1999? Did all of that support for 10.000 Gigabit suddenly
disappear? It makes me very suspicious. The additional ~3% loss to the WAN
compatable PHY is a seperate issue.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
----- Original Message -----
From: Andreas Bechtolsheim <avb@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>; <wthirion@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 10:29 AM
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 -----
>
>