RE: [802.3ae] Wan Interface Sublayer
Gerry,
This is a bit too complicated to go into detail here. Let me give you the
30k-ft version.
The entire jitter specification and test methodology for SONET is different
than in 802.3ae. This is due, in part, to the objectives for the two
standards organizations and the history of the groups. In the case of SONET,
a primary objective is to limit jitter propagation (yes, this is a
simplification); in 802.3ae, the primary objective is plug and play (no
engineered links; no jitter propagation).
In fact, while there is certain similarity between the 802.3ae and the
802.3z (or Gigabit Fibre Channel) jitter specifications and test
methodologies, even these are significantly different (compare clauses 38
and 52). Even if the specifications (the actual numbers) were the same, it
wouldn't mean anything since what is measured is not the same.
jonathan
Jonathan Thatcher
Principal Engineer, World Wide Packets
Chair, IEEE P802.3ae Task Force
Office: 509.242.9228 Fax: 509.242.9001
jonathan@xxxxxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerry Pepenella [mailto:gjp@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:28 PM
> To: Roy Bynum; Ayers, Mike; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [802.3ae] Wan Interface Sublayer
>
>
>
> Roy,
> The recent clock tolerance changes have aligned OC192
> with 802.3ae for
> clock accuracy and I do not believe there is an inherent
> affect on jitter.
> There is a difference in the jitter budgets for OC192 and
> 802.3ae. A quick
> summary is that the transmit jitter budget for SONET/SDH is
> tighter than
> 802.3ae and I believe the receive tolerance is larger for
> 802.3ae than for
> SONET/SDH. Since it is desired that the 802.3ae 'W'
> interfaces are directly
> compatible with the SONET/SDH network would it make some to
> align the 'W'
> interface in all parameters?
>
> Regards,
> Gerry Pepenella
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Roy Bynum
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 8:59 AM
> To: Gerry Pepenella; Ayers, Mike; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [802.3ae] Wan Interface Sublayer
>
>
>
> Gerry,
>
> I do not know how the clock tolerance change may have changed
> the jitter
> requirements. I do not remember any change to the jitter
> specifications
> that were a result of the clock tolerance change. Do you
> think that there
> should be?
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> At 08:29 AM 8/23/01 -0500, Gerry Pepenella wrote:
> >Roy,
> > Does this apply to jitter requirements as well?
> >
> >Gerry Pepenella
> >Silicon Laboratories
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
> Of Roy Bynum
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:42 PM
> >To: Ayers, Mike; 'stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx'
> >Subject: RE: [802.3ae] Wan Interface Sublayer
> >
> >
> >
> >Mike,
> >
> >As of Draft 3.1, the clock tolerances of the WAN PHY
> transmitter are the
> >same as SONET and SDH Class B SRE and LRE receivers.
> >
> >Thank You,
> >Roy Bynum
> >
> >At 04:16 PM 8/21/01 -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 07:15 AM
> > >
> > > > As for being able to transparently carry 10GbE WAN PHY over
> > > > an optical
> > > > network, no additional systems other than what already
> exists in the
> > > > service provider infrastructure is required. Only if
> the WAN PHY is
> > > > multiplexed into another transmission system other than 10G
> > > > SONET or SDH is
> > > > additional infrastructure needed, which is required
> regardless of the
> > > > protocol or PHY.
> > >
> > > So the clock and tolerances for WIS and SONET are
> the same.
> > >Correct?
> > >
> > >
> > >/|/|ike
>
>