Re: [802.3ae] a bit concerned...
Rich,
In response to your e-mail on a item by item issue.
1. The WAN PHY PMDs are esentually done because of the similarity to the
SONET OC192.
2. There is no way that a 10.3 Gb/s signaling can not be more demanding
than 9.9 Gb/s signaling.
3. Do not inter-mix OTN and ASON. Do not lump me into the telephony heads
that are trying to re-create a redundant overhead for SONET and SDH. I am
not a supporter of OTN or the Digital Wrapper and never have been. I do
not see the need for DW technology except for submarine cable systems. The
existing SONET and SDH technologies are doing a good job now and do not
need to be replaced. As for 10GbE LAN PHY is the strongest contender for
10G MAN/metro applications, it depends on whether it is implemented by an
enterprise user or a service provider.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 12:45 PM 7/4/01 -0700, Rich Taborek wrote:
>Roy,
>
>As a representative of both a PHY component and
>PMD/transceiver/transponder vendor for both P802.3ae LAN and WAN PHYs
>I'd like to offer the following in rebuttal to your assertions:
>
>1) The P802.3ae WAN PHY and its associated PMD, is, for all practical
>purposes, identical to that of SONET OC-192c and SDH VC-4-64c. Since the
>latter devices have been in the market for quite some time, and designed
>for longer reach applications than those specified in P802.3ae
>objectives, I believe that technical feasibility is proven. Economic
>feasibility... well that's another issue. However, it is unrelated to
>the issue at hand;
>
>2) P802.3ae PMD objectives stop at supporting link distances of: "At
>least 40 km over SMF". These are "slam dunk" distances for most SONET
>equipment. In fact, changing "At least 40 km" to "80 km" is still a slam
>dunk for SONET. This says to me that existing SONET PHY and PMD specs,
>including optical and jitter specs, should be adequate, and are probably
>too demanding for all P802.3ae applications. It seems to me that
>P802.3ae PHY and PMD specifications, being more demanding than those of
>SONET are inconsistent with intended P802.3ae applications. This is true
>for both LAN and WAN PHY types. I am submitting a TR comment against
>D3.1 to resolve this issue.
>
>3) I have no clue at to what you're alluding too when you say: "The
>issue that I have seen is stability at the higher signaling rate of the
>LAN PHY". I believe that you are a staunch supporter of Optical
>Transport Network (e.g. OTN, G.709, ASON, etc.) including the associated
>PHY and PMD signaling rates in the range of 10.7 to 12.5 GBaud. Please
>correct me if I am misinformed and you do not support these OTN
>activities. The 10.3125 GBaud signaling rate of the P802.3ae LAN PHY is
>again a slam dunk relative to OTN signaling, especially in consideration
>of the much shorter reach and point-to-point only topology applications
>for the LAN PHY. Bottom line is that the 10 Gigabit Ethernet LAN PHY is
>the latest, an likely strongest, contender for 10G MAN/metro
>applications.
>
>Best Regards,
>Rich
>
>--
>
>Roy Bynum wrote:
> >
> > Brad,
> >
> > As a customer that gets information individually from the vendors,
> > including transceiver vendors, I have concerns over the discrepancy with
> > OEM vendors that are pushing to develop the LAN PHY early instead of the
> > WAN PHY and the ability of the transceiver vendors ability to deliver the
> > WAN PHY PMD earlier than the LAN PHY PMD. The issue that I have seen is
> > stability at the higher signaling rate of the LAN PHY. I am saying this in
> > general context, not commenting on any one or group of system, component,
> > or PMD vendors.
> >
> > This could make for some discrepancies in the ability to do feasibility
> > and/or inter-operability testing, perhaps even in September.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
> >
> > At 03:37 PM 7/2/01 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:
> >
> > >Just so everyone in the Task Force is aware, we have had very low
> volume of
> > >comments submitted so far. I do have some concern as we contemplate
> moving
> > >forward to Sponsor ballot. My primary concern is that of demonstrated
> 10GbE
> > >interoperability. Without some level of interoperability work, we may not
> > >have a draft that has been reviewed and debugged as extensively as it
> needs
> > >to be. The lack of comments along with the lack of demonstrated
> product is
> > >of grave concern to me.
> > >
> > >Thank you,
> > >Brad
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Richard Taborek Sr. Intel Corporation
>XAUI Sherpa Intel Communications Group
>3101 Jay Street, Suite 110 Optical Products Group
>Santa Clara, CA 95054 Santa Clara Design Center
>408-496-3423 JAY1-101
>Cell: 408-832-3957 mailto:rich.taborek@xxxxxxxxx
>Fax: 408-486-9783 http://www.intel.com