Re: PMD discussion
Roy,
I have the same concern.
CWDM uses a different code (8b/10b) than serial (64b/66b), the LAN-PHY and
WAN-PHY
have different denominations representing different 10GE PHYs (as per May
meeting)
resulting in 10 different PHYs LAN and WAN together!!
What is UniPHY exactly?? What is it unifying anyway?
Why are we forcing on the WAN-PHY a code that is bandwidth inefficient and
incompatible
with the SONET world?
Kamran
Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> Rich,
>
> Now I am confused. It was my understanding that the LAN only PHY would be using 64b/66b, just like what is being forced on the WAN
> compatible PHY. If so, then it was my understanding that the parallel/CWDM PMD would also be 64b/66b.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rich Taborek" <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "HSSG" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 2:35 AM
> Subject: Re: PMD discussion
>
> >
> > Ed,
> >
> > Done! I completely agree to drop this tangent and focus on PMD issues.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
> >
> > --
> >
> > NetWorthTK@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > Rich:
> > >
> > > I believe you misunderstood my mail to conclude your comments too quickly.
> > >
> > > I never mentioned that I like the 12.5 Gbps 8B/10B coding to be replaced by
> > > 10.3125 Gbps 64b/66b.
> > >
> > > We are discussing serial vs parallel issues.
> > >
> > > We are too much involved in resolving PMD issues right now, and I believe no
> > > one is interested in bring the coding scheme back to reflector at this moment.
> > >
> > > Please do not intiate this one. let us focuse on PMD issues.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Ed Chang
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > 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