| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Gary,
Please refer to Paul Bottorff's presentation:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/mar00/bottorff_2_0300.pdf
which explains why the WAN-compatible PHY is desired vs an EoS approach.
There are networking benefits beyond simply the port card cost. Note that the
expected volumes for a 10GE interface will drive its cost far below that of a short
reach OC-192 port.
Regarding your last statement below, the whole point of the WAN-compatible PHY is
so it can be plugged into the installed base of OC-192 Regens/transponders - aka
'non-muxed ELTE' or 'active transponder' per the WAN PHY Definitions Ad Hoc work at:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/public/jan00/law_1_0100.pdf
...Dave
David W. Martin
Nortel Networks
+1 613 765-2901
+1 613 763-2388 (fax)
dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
========================
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Nicholl [SMTP:gnicholl@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 5:21 PM
To: Roy Bynum; rtaborek; HSSG
Subject: Re: WAN PHY name
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
>>
>>
>
>