FW: Fwd: AW: 10 GbE WAN

["David Martin" <dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: FW: Fwd: AW: 10 GbE WAN

Re, resend.

-----Original Message-----
From:   Martin, David [SKY:1I63-M:EXCH]
Sent:   Monday, August 28, 2000 10:03 AM
To:     'stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx(INTERNET)'
Subject:        FW: Fwd: AW: 10 GbE WAN

Resend

-----Original Message-----
From:   Martin, David [SKY:1I63-M:EXCH]
Sent:   Sunday, August 27, 2000 9:16 PM
To:     stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject:        RE: Fwd: AW: 10 GbE WAN

Roy,

I would expect that if a customer wanted an ELTE, they could say:
make me a box with an IEEE 802.3ae 10GE WAN PHY port on one
side & an ITU G.707 STM-64/OC-192 port on the other side. The
vendor then ensures the internal pieces of the box do the appropriate
translation. I don't think a standards effort is needed for internal
functionality.

Regarding ASON standardization, it is being driven in T1X1.5 and
ITU SG15/13 (c.f. draft G.ASON). I don't think a parallel effort is warranted.

I agree that the full use of K-Bytes for the WAN PHY is not necessary.
Perhaps though, K2 bits '6-8' for AIS-L & RDI-L might be of value
for fault isolation.

...Dave

-----Original Message-----
From:   Roy Bynum [SMTP:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Saturday, August 26, 2000 4:30 PM
To:     Figueira, Norival [SC1:470:EXCH]; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Cc:     Martin, David [SKY:1I63-M:EXCH]
Subject:        Re: Fwd: AW: 10 GbE WAN

Norival,

This brings me to a problem that I had with the original "Definitions" Ad
Hoc.  There is no such thing as an "ELTE".  No one makes one and there is
not a definition of one in any standard of transmission systems.

What does exist in deployment is OC192 regenerators.  What also exists is a
STE (Section Terminating Element)(active transponder) that is part of an
existing DWDM optical protection system that is beginning to be
deployed.  This will be the initial deployment of 10GbE, primarily by
legacy-free carrier service providers and Internet Network Service Providers.

The standard for the reduced functional interface is defined by
T1X1.  There is also an optical networking services standard in development
in a vendor consortium (not a recognized standards
organization).  Pre-standardization work is going on for Automatic Optical
Switched Networks (ASON).  As part of ASON, I have postulated a
non-multiplexing LTE ("Lite LTE") as the active transponder for transparent
optical switches.  This, I believe, because of the economics involved, will
become a reality within the next year from several vendors.

There is now an effort in the transmission standards bodies on 40Gb
(OC768/STM256).  The transmission people are concerned that IEEE is
creating a transmission protocol that will not inter-operate with the TDM
standard that they are attempting to codify.  They are begining to
recognize the market potential that 10GbE WAN PHY represents.  This is the
source of the concern that is being expressed.

Personally, I tend to believe that the economics of ASON, along with 10GbE,
will overshadow the continuing attempts to increase the bandwidth of TDM
multiplexed systems.  The standardization of Point to Point Ethernet over
SONET (EoS) will provide the same qualities of services on legacy carrier
TDM transmission systems, for small enterprise intranets, that the
legacy-free carrier, pure optical systems for abstracted services internets
will enjoy.

  I do not think that the "K" bytes need to be supported because 802.3
already has N+1 fault protection in 802.3ae.  The customer optical
interface does not need the same 1+1 protection as the transmission line
side does.  The question is, will it cost more to provide support for B2
and M0?.

Also, as a side note, should there be a call for interest in creating a
standard for the "ELTE" within 802?  Would this be a mechanism to actually
standardize some of the work that is going on the optical networking vendor
consortium and ASON?








At 04:11 PM 8/25/00 -0700, Norival Figueira wrote:
>Roy,
>
>I have heard comments similar to the ones attached to this email
>even from individuals in the TF. However, these comments usually
>assume that 10G Ethernet can be connected directly to existing
>SONET/SDH equipment, which would require SONET/SDH compliance.
>This is not an objective of the 10GE WAN PHY. The 10GE WAN PHY
>connects to a SONET/SDH transport network using an ELTE (Ethernet LTE),
>which is defined in the following document:
>http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/public/jan00/law_1_0100.pdf
>
>The ELTE is a layer 1 relay that adds the missing overhead bytes
>(e.g., B2, and M1) making the resulting signal SONET/SDH compliant,
>which eliminates the problems described in the attached messages.
>The ELTE is required not only to fix overheads but also to
>allow for differences in jitter and optical specs.
>
>The clock tolerance issue is also handled by the ELTE using the
>pointer processing mechanism. The pointer processing mechanism can
>handle +-100ppm clocks. The only potential issue here is that a
>transport network may set alarms indicating that pointers are being
>modified too frequently. These alarms could be disabled or
>ignored. This is probably a minor inconvenience.
>
>I think that an important issue now (for September?) is to
>achieve some closure on the issues of B2/M1, J1, and clock
>tolerance.
>
>Regards,
>Norival
>
>At 10:25 AM 8/25/00 -0500, Roy Bynum wrote:
> >David, Norival,
> >
> >It appears that the carrier and other standards bodies are finally
> waking up and taking an interest in what P802.3ae is doing.  Have any of
> you received any feed back on the overhead bytes for those outside of the TF?
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Roy Bynum
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 08:22 -0500 (CDT)
> >>From: Curtis Brownmiller <Curtis.Brownmiller@xxxxxxxx>
> >>Subject: AW: 10 GbE WAN
> >>To: Roy Bynum <roy.bynum@xxxxxxxx>, Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Cc: John Fee <john.fee@xxxxxxxx>, Shoa-Kai Liu <Shoa-Kai.Liu@xxxxxxxx>,
> >> "Stepler, Samuel D." <Sam.Stepler@xxxxxxxx>,
> >> Glenn Wellbrock <Glenn.Wellbrock@xxxxxxxx>
> >>Organization: MCI WorldCom
> >>X-Mailer: MailRoom for Internet v3.1b (www.SierraSol.com)
> >>
> >>Roy,
> >>
> >>Are Juergen's comments below true?  If so could you provide me with the
> >>IEEE's background rational?
> >>
> >>Curtis
> >>
> >>Forwarded message:
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:05 -0500 (CDT)
> >>From: Heiles Juergen <Juergen.Heiles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>To: 'Eaves John' <JEaves@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >>    Heiles Juergen <Juergen.Heiles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >>    "'tsg15q11@xxxxxx'" <tsg15q11@xxxxxx>
> >>Sender: owner-tsg15q11@xxxxxxx
> >>Reply-to: Heiles Juergen <Juergen.Heiles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Subject: AW: 10 GbE WAN
> >>
> >>John,
> >>
> >>the best way would be that companies attending IEEE802.3 and ITU bring in
> >>contributions on the issue or discuss it on the mailing list.
> >>Looking on figueira_1_070.pdf I noticed that B2 and M1 are not supported.
> >>For connection to a 40 Gbit/s SDH/SONET Multiplexer at leastB2 should be
> >>supported. Otherwise the multiplexer would report constant multiplex
> >>section PM errors and eventually Signal Degrade and EXC alarms. Sipport of
> >>single ended maintenance (M1) seems to me also of interest for an operator.
> >>MS-AIS detection in the K2 byte seems also not to be required.
> >>Furthermore they have their own jitter specs. Will they fit to the
> >>SDH/SONET Specs, specially for the receiver?
> >>I assume that the 10 GbE WAN is intended for connection to a public SDH or
> >>Optical Network and not only for point-to-point connections using only
> >>intermediate regenerators.
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>
> >>Juergen
> >>
> >>> -----Urspr> üngliche Nachricht-----
> >>> Von:  Eaves John [SMTP:JEaves@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>> Gesendet am:  Montag, 21. August 2000 19:36
> >>> An:   'Heiles Juergen'; 'tsg15q11@xxxxxx'
> >>> Betreff:  RE: 10 GbE WAN
> >>>
> >>> Juergen et al.:
> >>> I didn't attend the last 10GbE meeting and would welcome any more
> immediate
> >>> inputs.  Until then, a look at item 11 and the summary about motion
> #8, both
> >>> contained in the meeting report
> >>> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/jul00/minutes_0700.pdf
> >>> along with vg 32 of
> >>> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/jul00/figueira_1_0700.pdf
> >>> says that the 100ppm frequency tolerance is still undecided.
> >>>
> >>> It's then a good idea to inform IEEE of this situation re the issue of
> >>> mapping into ODU2.  Unfortunately, the next (interim) meeting of 10GbE is
> >>> 12-14 September, prior to the Q.11 experts meeting.
> >>> Regards
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Heiles Juergen [mailto:Juergen.Heiles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 10:18 AM
> >>> To: 'tsg15q11@xxxxxx'
> >>> Subject: 10 GbE WAN
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> At the OIF meeting this week it was indicated that the frequency
> tolerance
> >>> of the 10 GbE WAN signal (e.g. STM-64) is still not decided 8+/- 20
> or 100
> >>> ppm).
> >>> MAy be some one has up to date information. But if it is the case,
> wWe may
> >>> better indicate to the 10GbE standaridzation group that a STM-64 with +/-
> >>> 100 ppm cannot be mapped into a ODU2 and that +/- 20 ppm should be used.
> >>>
> >>> Juergen