| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Roy,
Are you specifically advocating that 802.3 support not only the same rate as Sonet, but that we also support:
"common carrier operations and maintance support must be within the protocol. SONET/SDH are the current, and most widely deployed transport protocols within the common carrier domain."
Walter Thirion
Level One Communications
512-407-2110
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg-speed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg-speed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Roy
> Bynum
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 1999 9:34 AM
> To: Thirion, Walt
> Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; stds-802-3-hssg-speed@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Issues concerning 10GbE speed standards
>
>
>
> Walt, et al,
>
> The issue of speed is one of economics. The existing GbE
> standard does
> not allow for any operations support for the optical fiber facility.
> This makes GbE very expensive to maintain and support over a MAN/WAN
> environment. The cost of ownership of GbE will prevent it
> from having a
> masive impact directly on the cost of MAN and WAN data
> communications.
>
> Common carrier protocols, such as DS1/DS3/SONET/SDH have
> operations and
> maintencance functionality incorporated in the overhead of the
> protocol. DS1 and DS3 have a subcarrier that provides remote and
> reverse signalling outside of the transport "payload". This allows
> carriers to troubleshoot and maintain remote systems without
> haveing to
> dispatch someone for every little issue. In some respects,
> GbE fails to
> meet the 802.3 functional requirements for interoperation with common
> carrier systems.
>
> 1000BaseSX and 1000BaseLX are optical networking standards. Whether
> this was the intention or even the perception of the 802.3 working
> group. The working group did not include any support for
> operations or
> maintenance in the optical domain for this protocol. The functional
> operations of copper LAN facilities are well understood by the 802.3
> working group, but when you get beyond multi-mode, 850nm, optical
> transport, it is no longer a LAN, it is a WAN. Some will say
> that 30km
> is a MAN, not a WAN. If you apply the same function processes
> distictions to optical systems that are applied to copper systems, you
> will discover that a MAN is actually a WAN within a single central
> office domain. When I was actively working on Ethernet, when
> it left the
> building, it was no longer a LAN, it was a WAN.
>
> In order for 10000BaseX to support MAN/WAN systems within
> common carrier
> facilities, common carrier operations and maintance support must be
> within the protocol. SONET/SDH are the current, and most widely
> deployed transport protocols within the common carrier domain.
> SONET/SDH use the transport overhead to provide that functionality.
> That functionality allows the common carriers to reduce the operations
> and support costs for the fiber optic transport systems, and
> thus lower
> the overall costs passed on to the end users. This will be
> the economic
> breaking point for 10GbE. Can it directly support the fiber optic
> transmission system? Is there any reason why it should not be able to
> directly provide operations support for the optical fiber systems?
>
> A second economic issue of speed for 10GbE is one of
> utilizing existing
> technology and standards at the ~10Gigabit speed range. A masive
> install base of facilities and support already exist for
> OC192/STM64 on
> a global scale. Optical amplifers, signal and clock recovery
> regenerators, and other systems are already in place to carry
> OC192/STM64 signals in metropolitan as well as wide are networks. I
> would not want to contemplate the economic impact of having to install
> totally seperate technology to support 10GbE. If it can not use the
> existing ~10Gb technology and facilities, Other than "dark
> fiber", 10GbE
> will have to be installed over a totaly new, and totaly seperate
> facilities. Is there any reason why 10GbE should not support and make
> use of the existing ~10Gb transport facilities?
>
> I hope that this message has not been too long. As an employee of a
> common carrier company, I have a recognizable vested interest
> in looking
> toward 10GbE as a major economical alternative to existing
> data tranport
> technolgy, such as TDM or ATM. I have almost 20 years of designing,
> installing, and supporting LAN, MAN, and WAN systems. I have seen the
> economics change as more self-supporting protocols and
> technologies have
> become available. The key is to provide a protocol that allows remote
> operations support, which reduces the number of "warm bodies" that are
> required to support the systems. This is what I am asking for. Is
> there any reason why this can not be done?
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> MCI WorldCom
>