Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
Roy,
I believe that you have overhead sources twisted a bit.
All proposals for the LAN PHY support a MAC data transfer rate of 10 Gbps. What
are you referring to when you say ~10% slower? The only thing that's limiting
the MAC's accepted 10 Gbps data rate is legacy SONET OC-192c and it's inherent
overhead.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> 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
-------------------------------------------------------
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