RE: What is 802.3ae WAN-PHY?
Hi Dae, Hi Jonathan,
Thank you for your feedback. Some of my comments are intersperced
bellow. Sorry for my short reply, but I am now trying hard to figure
out pros and cons of the SONET framer approach and the XGENIE approach
with the help of another valuable feedbacks from the SONET-framer side
(my thanks to Paul, Dave, and Roy). I think I will be able to post
the result in a few days.
At 1:16 PM -0700 00.4.8, Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg02199.html
> I assume the following from what I have seen thus far:
> 1. To adopt this might not require 802.3ae to write a new set of
> line/path/etc management primitives.
I think at least we will not need re-write ITU-T G774 series where
the management object of network element is defined. As for ITU-T
G707 where the SDH overhead bytes are defined and allocated, we
need further investigation about how far we can make the mapping
simple.
> 2. A direct mapping would allow the "WAN" and the "LAN" systems to link in
> a more direct way at, effectively, a lower level.
> 3. It permits greater flexibility in where we might choose to architect the
> SONET framer in order to optimize the solution. It might even permit
> multiple instantiations.
Good point. If the SONET adopts the Ethernet packet adaptation with
IPG transparency such as 64b/66b on SONET by Uni-PHY, Ethernet PHY can
enjoy end-end path signaling without any mapping. This is your
muliple instatiations, right?
>> -----Original Message-----
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg02198.html
>> From: Dae Young KIM [mailto:dykim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Anyway, these bytes are only XENIE specific and imbedded into
>> IPG. No mapping to
>> SONET overheads. XENIE management bytes are transferred
>> trasparently over SONET to
>> the other end until you meet another XENIE.
I still reserve my final decision which would be supportive for
full-SONET; 64/66 or EOS. The latter don't support IPG transparency
and hence here I provide the mapping.
>> If you could somehow manage to push your XENIE (or only its
>> features) into MAC or
>> RS(Reconciliation Layer), then thus management-enforced
>> Ethernet MAC frames would
>> be able to be poured directly into the SONET frame.
As Rich has already responded, RS would be better than MAC for
the instantiation. Preserving MAC is clearly stated in five
criteria.
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg02201.html
>> Osamu Ishida wrote:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/email/msg02168.html
Best Regards,
Osamu
-----------------------------------------
Osamu ISHIDA
NTT Network Innovation Laboratories
TEL +81-468-59-3263 FAX +81-468-55-1282