Re: WAN PHY name
Gary:
The work at ANSI is quite different from the work at IEEE. IEEE is defining
a low cost store and forward network which is compatible with SONET. The
IEEE interface is fully specified by the IEEE allowing it to be built by
many vendors. The WAN-PHY interface provides a universal access interface
to any SONET, DWDM, or dark fiber equipment. ANSI is only specifying a
method for frame delineation and frame formats which may be carried in a
SONET envelope. Though these may be related to each other they are very
different things. No other group is working on a low cost Ethernet
interface which is SONET compatible.
Cheers,
Paul
At 05:20 PM 4/10/00 -0400, Gary Nicholl wrote:
>
>Roy,
>
>So if T1X1/ITU are already developing an 'Ethernet over SONET/SDH'
interface then why can't we simply use this as the WAN-PHY ? One issue that
is often brought up is the cost of current OC-192 interfaces. However a
number of forums (including the OIF and the ITU) are addressing this issue
by specifying low-cost, very short reach optical interfaces at OC-192.
These interfaces are designed to operate over distances of up to approx
500m, and have very aggressive cost targets. I haven't seen the optics
proposal for the WAN-PHY yet but I would be surprised if there is a
significant difference in cost compared to an OC-192 VSR interface.
>
>In fact at OFC recently one vendor was promoting a single low-cost 10G
optical interface that could be used for "the proposed 10 Gigabit Ethernet
WAN PHY, as well as existing OC-192 and OC-192c frame formats".
>
>So rather than develop a new 'SONET-lite' interface within the IEEE, I
think a better approach would be to work with existing industry forums
(ITU,OIF,T1X1) to agree on a standard, low-cost OC-192 very-short-reach
(VSR) optical interface. That way everyone gets to benefit from a common,
standard , low-cost OC-192 interface. 10GE is not the only group that wants
low cost 10G interconnect ...
>
>Another advantage of using EOS as the WAN-PHY is that it doesn't require
an 'ethernet specific' ELTE on the DWDM equipment. A standard 'OC-192
transponder' could be used instead.
>
>Gary Nicholl .........
>
>
>
>At 07:52 AM 4/7/00 , Roy Bynum wrote:
>>
>>Rich,
>>
>>You need to pay more attention, or if you have been paying attention,stop
>>generating confusion. Ethernet over SONET/SDH is the standard that are
>>being developed in T1X1 and ITU. The WAN compatible PHY is being developed
>>by IEEE. The WAN compatible PHY proposal uses a "Lite" version of
>>SONET/SDH.
>>
>>Roy
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 12:57 PM
>>Subject: Re: WAN PHY name
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Jay, Martin,
>>>
>>> I believe that Ethernet Over SONET represents a specific proposal to IEEE
>>> P802.3ae to map Ethernet to SONET. Two problems with this:
>>>
>>> 1) It is not a proposal endorsed by a majority of IEEE P802.3ae members
>>> interested in meeting the WAN objectives, nevermind 75%;
>>>
>>> 2) It is not applicable to supporting native Ethernet over the WAN in the
>>> absence of SONET/SDH.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Rich
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> >
>>> > How about EOS/S (Ethernet Over SONET / SDH)? The world extends beyond
>>North
>>> > America.
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Paul A. Bottorff, Director Switching Architecture
Enterprise Solutions Technology Center
Nortel Networks, Inc.
4401 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185
Tel: 408 495 3365 Fax: 408 495 1299 ESN: 265 3365
email: pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx