RE: WAN PHY name

["David Martin" <dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: WAN PHY name

Gary,

As Roy stated, cost is a key difference between the WAN-compatible PHY and the
ANSI/ITU EoS work. There are many networking feature differences as well. Please
refer to Paul's presentation:

        http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/mar00/bottorff_2_0300.pdf

Some other differences are that the EoS work in ANSI (actually referred to there as
"Data over SONET/SDH") addresses carriage of any L2 payload over SONET/SDH.
It is also geared at SONET/SDH ring topologies, with an associated suite of networking
functionality.

...Dave

David W. Martin
Nortel Networks
+1 613 765-2901  
+1 613 763-2388 (fax)
dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

========================

-----Original Message-----
From:   Roy Bynum [SMTP:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Monday, April 10, 2000 10:29 PM
To:     rtaborek; HSSG; Gary Nicholl
Subject:        Re: WAN PHY name




Gary,

We are getting a bit off of the track with the direction that this tread is
going.  I don't know if you noticed, but the Ethernet frame mapping in the
WAN compatible PHY proposal by Paul Bottorff and David Martin is much the
same as the point to point Ethernet frame mapping in T1X1.5_256r1-99.  The
reason for the "SONET Lite" version proposed for P802.3ae is cost.  EOS is
designed for transmission systems not data systems.  A P802.3ae WAN
compatible PHY interface should cost from 1/4 to 1/10 the cost of the EOS
interfaces in the transmission systems.   The Ethernet over SDH interfaces
proposed to ITU will also be expensive compared to P802.3ae.

Thank you,
Roy Bynum




----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Nicholl <gnicholl@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx>; HSSG
<stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 4:20 PM
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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>