RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
James,
I have been working in telephony for ten years. I have never seen an
ELTE. There is no standard for an ELTE. As far as I know the "ELTE" is a
mythical device that was invented to explain the operation of an STE/LTE in
802.3 terms.
There is a standard for SONET LTEs and STEs that will work with the limited
overhead bytes currently defined in the 10 GbE WIS. A DWDM STE that
matches the 10GbE WIS has been announced by one of the transmission systems
vendors. If the Task Force wants to refer to that equipment as "ELTE" they
can, but it is only seems to be confusing everyone. In any case, as far as
I am concerned, the issue of the "ELTE" has been resolved. There is not a
problem. The current operational maintenance functionality in the WIS stands.
Any other reference to the "ELTE" is implementation specific. Do we need
to add an annex that diagrams an example of how and why the WIS/"ELTE"
relationship can exist? Do we need an annex that covers the need for
operational maintenance functionality in un-manned remote system
implementations, such as what the EFM study group saw from Johnathan Moore
of Grant County PUD? If so, I am not sure that we can get into the current
round of the Draft.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 10:47 PM 1/29/01 -0800, James Colin wrote:
>Hello There,
>I understand that the "ELETE problem" was not
>resolved: Even if you match WAN PHY clocks and SONET
>clocks you still need the ELETE. If So: What is the
>benefit?
>And:
>Since the ELTE can work with LAN PHY, does the
>existence of this standard justified?
>
>Thanks,
>James
>
>
>--- "Booth, Bradley" <bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
>
> > question everything about it. If we can't justify
> > it being in the standard,
> > then it probably doesn't belong.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Brad
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 4:03 PM
> > To: Booth, Bradley; HSSG
> > Subject: RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
> >
> >
> > Brad,
> >
> > Just because the objective was vague doe not mean it
> > was without
> > meaning. By your reasoning, I could just as easily
> > state that RL/LF
> > functionality is out of scope, as it was not
> > included in the
> > objectives. Just as the objective for a LAN PHY
> > carried with it the
> > inferred lack of need for management overhead, the
> > objective for the WAN
> > PHY carried with it the inferred need for management
> > overhead. Please
> > refer back to the all of the traffic on the
> > reflector and to the
> > presentations concerning the management overhead
> > requirements for a WAN PHY.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
> >
> >
> > At 09:53 PM 1/26/01 -0800, Booth, Bradley wrote:
> >
> > >To quote the objectives:
> > >"Define two families of PHYs
> > >- A LAN PHY, operating at a data rate of 10.000
> > Gb/s
> > >- A WAN PHY, operating at a data rate compatible
> > with the payload rate of
> > >OC-192c/SDH VC-4-64c"
> > >
> > >That's all the objective says. By that objective,
> > we could create a "WAN
> > >PHY" that that is just the 10GBASE-R PHY pushing
> > data onto the fiber at
> > >9.58464 Gb/s, without any SONET overhead. The
> > objective was meant to be
> > >vague so that the task force had some flexibility.
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >Brad
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > >Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 5:59 AM
> > >To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; HSSG
> > >Subject: Re: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Rich,
> > >
> > >You have a very good a presenting that would seem
> > reasonable to those who
> > >don't have any experience in attempting to
> > implement what you are
> > >proposing. The objectives of P802ae include a WAN
> > PHY. What constitutes a
> > >WAN PHY has been explained to the group by those of
> > us that have worked in
> > >a WAN optical environment. You keep miss
> > representing the requirements of
> > >a WAN PHY by presenting a LAN implementation as a
> > WAN. It works very well
> > >at confusing those that are attempting to gain an
> > understanding of what the
> > >issues are.
> > >
> > >Those of us that have worked in the WAN optical
> > environment are not
> > >confused by your comments. Those of us that have
> > worked in the WAN optical
> > >environment would like to have the opportunity to
> > educate those that would
> > >actually like to gain a understanding of what the
> > real world requirements
> > >are.
> > >
> > >Thank you,
> > >Roy Bynum
> >
> >
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
>a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/