RE: [802.3ae] Wan Interface Sublayer
Gerry,
At present, the data systems that are used for OC19c transmission today are
not supporting the transmission system DCC, Order Wire, etc, and we the
transmission people do not want them to. The only real distinction between
the WAN PHY and what may be eventually needed is loop timing. The only
time that loop timing is an issue is if the WAN PHY becomes a client of a
higher rate signal through electrical multiplexing, which is not anytime
soon. Basically, if you know what a non-multiplexing Line Regenerating
Element is, then you already know what needs to be developed, if anything.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
WorldCom Technology Development.
At 11:30 AM 8/27/01 -0700, Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>Gerry,
>
>I think that this branch of the thread is different than the rest....
>
>I think that the probability that the committee would endorse such a
>direction -- especially at this late a stage in the process -- is
>extraordinarily unlikely. Even so, there is no reason why a company couldn't
>produce such a part and reference both specifications. If it is a good idea
>(no cost penalty; broader market potential; etc), it will do well. It
>wouldn't be the first time that a company built a part that was a
>combination of multiple, standard-based specifications.
>
>jonathan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gerry Pepenella [mailto:gjp@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 7:19 AM
> > To: Jonathan Thatcher; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Roy Bynum; Ayers, Mike
> > Subject: RE: [802.3ae] Wan Interface Sublayer
> >
> >
> > Jonathan,
> > Since the interfaces exist for OC192, would it make
> > sense to require the
> > limits (and test procedure) for 10GBASE-W to be a superset of
> > 802.3ae and
> > OC192? This would create an interface that could be used with
> > both systems
> > and I do not believe that there are mutually exclusive
> > requirements. The
> > change could be simply to reference the GR-1244-CORE and
> > GR-499-CORE (and
> > corresponding ITU) documents for 10GBASE-W.
> > I believe the change would affect only systems that
> > wanted to implement
> > 10GBASE-W, but this would create a definitive Ethernet over
> > SONET standard.
> > Regards,
> > Gerry Pepenella
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Thatcher
> > [mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 6:49 PM
> > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > Cc: 'Gerry Pepenella'; Roy Bynum; Ayers, Mike
> > Subject: 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
> > >
> > >
> >