Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
Ariel,
The duality can be expressed in a decision matrix:
CAN I use this PHY in this implementation?
LAN | WAN
--------------------------
LAN only PHY | Yes | No |
--- --------------------------
WAN compatible PHY | Yes | Yes |
--------------------------
Would this PHY be NECESSARY for this implementation? (In other words, must
I use this PHY and not the other one?)
LAN | WAN
--------------------------
LAN only PHY | No | No |
--- --------------------------
WAN compatible PHY | No | Yes |
--------------------------
I would rather have separate PHYs, LAN only and WAN compatible. But if
there is to be only one PHY, then the WAN compatible PHY can serve double
duty, the LAN only PHY can not.
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
>
>
>
>
>