Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
Ariel,
You are probably correct. I would not think it would be necessary to use the
WAN/LAN compatible PHY for a >25m link. There is talk of doing a copper
10GbE that would be able to do 25m. I would probably use that.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
----- Original Message -----
From: Ariel Hendel <Ariel.Hendel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
>
>
> > From: "Roy Bynum" <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jonathan Thatcher"
<jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Paul Bottroff" <paul_bottorff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David Martin"
<dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "P802.3ae
> Task Force Reflector" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
> > Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:05:26 -0600
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > X-Priority: 3
> > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
> > 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
> >
> >
> > Rich,
> >
> > ... (Personally, I also think that Fibre Channel
> > is a very good technology. I just don't want to build a large extended,
> > long distance, LAN infrastructure using it.)
> >
> ...
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
>
>
> Roy,
>
> If we apply duality to your statement we get:
>
> "Personally, I also think that SONET is a very good technology. I just
> don't want to build a SMALL, SHORT distance, LAN infrastructure using
> it."
>
> It appears to me that this dual statement is as reasonable as yours, and
> it might be what Rich (Taborek) was saying.
>
> Why spend a sunny Sunday questioning the credentials or experience of
> TF members that share his views?
>
>
>
> Ariel Hendel
> Sun Microsystems
>
>
>
>
>