RE: Jonathan's Proposed HSSG Distance Motion

["Vipul Bhatt" <vipul.bhatt@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Del,

I think this email reflector will be a very workable mechanism for comments
and responses to proposals.

I support motion 1 (traditional Ethernet LAN space) as well as motion 2
(extended space).

On motion 3 (direct WAN attachment), I would like to wait and hear some
discussion first. There is much to consider:

- Cost-effectiveness: how do we build something that is compatible with
SONET but is significantly more cost-effective?
- Synchronous/asynchronous boundary delineation: Some products that have
put Ethernet over SONET (OC-12) have used PPP or HDLC as an intermediate
layer. At 16 times the speed, what mechanism should we use that is
achievable with today's ASIC technology?
- 1250 MBytes data rate objective: Incompatible with OC-192c direct
attachment, unless a throttling mechanism between MAC and PHY is put in
place, which in turns goes against the proposed objective of leaving MAC
unchanged.
- Coding: The chain of consequences of not staying with 8B10B.

Thanks,
Vipul

Vipul Bhatt
Finisar Corporation
274 Ferguson Drive
Mountain View CA 94043
Phone:(650)691-4000 x113
Fax:(650)691-4010
Email: vipul.bhatt@xxxxxxxxxxx


=============================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg-distance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg-distance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> HANSON,DEL (HP-SanJose,ex1)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 9:24 AM
> To: 'HSSG Distance Ad Hoc'
> Subject: Jonathan's Proposed HSSG Distance Motion
>
>
> HSSG Distance Ad Hoc Colleagues,
>
> Thanks for agreeing at the HSSG Coeur d'Alene Interim meeting to
> participate on the HSSG Distance Ad Hoc group. Thanks also to
> David Law for all his work of getting this reflector to be operational.
>     Jonathan has distributed a working proposal for an amended
> motion covering the application space and distance objectives.
> In order to proceed with a PAR defining 10GbE objectives,
> objectives motions must gain 75% acceptance.
>     Please review Jonathan's motion proposal and comment back on
> it to this reflector. Periodically, based on the comments, I
> will draw together an updated version of the proposed motion for
> further comment. I would suggest that we use this reflector for
> this interchange until 6/25/99. It would be great if we could
> reach consensus without a conference call, however, I propose a
> conference call on Monday, 6/28/99, at 8 AM PST to review our
> updated version of motions we intend to submit to the Plenary in
> Montreal.
>     Please comment back on this suggested process and your
> comments on Jonathan's starting motion proposal.
>
> Regards,
> Del
>

winmail.dat