RE: Interface reality check
I do not understand this statement.
If there is a simple and direct mapping from the XGMII to XAUI (8b/10b), and
there is a simple and direct mapping from XAUI to 64b/66b, then there must
be a simple and direct mapping from XGMII to 64b/66b.
I would love to see a proof why this would not be true.
jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 7:17 AM
> To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx; HSSG
> Subject: Re: Interface reality check
>
>
>
> Rich,
>
> You are making statements that are not based in fact. The
> 64B/66B proposals
> are based on the continuance of the LAN only PHY block coding
> schemes. Rich
> Walker has stated that when he made the 64B/66B he did not
> take into account
> the possibility of the absence of 8B10B Hari. The 8B10B
> block coding keeps
> getting brought back over and over again under different
> names. The only
> reason that this would happen is that it becomes obvious that
> the group as a
> whole did not support it in each of its previous iterations.
> This has not
> happened to the WAN compatible PHY proposals that do not use
> block coding.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Interface reality check
>
>
> >
> > Roy,
> >
> > Absolutely not.
> >
> > It should be clear that 64B/66B is a single lane serial
> transmission code
> which
> > is embodied in multiple strongly endorsed IEEE P802.3ea
> proposals. These
> > include:
> >
> > a) LAN Serial PHY:
> >
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/mar00/bhatt_1_0300.pdf
> > b) UniPHY:
> >
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/mar00/frazier_1
> _0300.pdf
> >
> > Note that the UniPHY covers all WAN application spaces,
> whether SONET/SDH
> or
> > native Ethernet.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
> >
> > --
> >
> > Roy Bynum wrote:
> > >
> > > Rich,
> > >
> > > Are you referring to the LAN only PHY?
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Roy Bynum
> > >
> > > --
> > > >
> > > > Rick,
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. I should have qualified as "pure scrambled"
> code. 64B/66B
> > > > certainly does not fit into this category. This is one
> of the clear
> > > > benefits of 3.125% overhead.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Rich
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Rick Walker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed. Cool! 8B/10B plug: 8B/10B supports the
> detection of poor
> > > > > > signal quality on a link regardless of the information being
> > > > > > transported. In fact simple receiver circuitry can
> determine the
> BER
> > > > > > at the decoder in real time. Try that with a
> scrambled code ;_)
> > > > >
> > > > > 64b/66b also supports the measurement of bit error
> rate by looking
> at
> > > > > master transition violations regardless of the
> information being
> > > > > transmitted.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are right, however, in that 64b/66b is not a pure
> scrambled
> code,
> > > > > but one augmented by periodic frame sync bits.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > --
> > > > > Rick Walker
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
> >
>