| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Jeff, Let me try a different tact – For all of these instances – the specifications that would exist on each different pair or optical fiber should be the same –
So the specification for each should be essentially the same – just varying the number of different pairs or fiber. In the case of F/L/E we are looking at different specifications for the different number of lanes, as the associated mux/demux loss would vary, based on the number of optical signals being muxed /demuxed together. Does this help ? John From: Jeffery Maki <jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx> John, Let me ask a question first. I your case (a), do you mean the individual interfaces will support ingress signals on separate time domains within +/-100ppm or are you simply looking at the fact that there is exact alignment with the PMD definition of a lower speed of Ethernet where any time domain support is an implementation detail? Jeff From: jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx> [External Email. Be cautious of content] Suggestion? From: Jeffery Maki <jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx> John, I chose my words carefully. As others have commented, they understand things in an operational sense from the implementations they see. Constricting the definition of “breakout” from its broader industry meaning does not seem like a good start. Perhaps use a different word that doesn’t come with so much “baggage.” Jeff From: jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx> [External Email. Be cautious of content] Jeff Please keep my perspective in mind right now – I am trying to draft the CFI and scope of a new standard effort in the IEEE 802. Not the scope of an implementation in an industry MSA. Different requirements for each. And I hope all recognize the challenge. John From: Jeffery Maki <jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx> John, It is hard at this point to separate out conceptually the implementation from the abstract PHY. One can devise a superset module that supports a number of compliant PHY implementations with some being parallel fiber based and others being duplex fiber based. One’s choice of focus on your (a) or your (b) is their choice of favorite point of view. Both (a) and (b) are supported equally well by the module. Jeff From: John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx> [External Email. Be cautious of content] All – conversation is good, and highlighting an issue that needs to be addressed. There appears to be a trend of
I can see a path to relating Item A to be within scope of Beyond 400 GbE effort. I am not seeing that same path for Item B. John From: Ted Sprague <tsprague@xxxxxxxxxxxx> I’m used to the second definition (independent PHYs grouped in the same MSA, common interface for management). In the first case, the module may support a unified mode or multiple individual modes – but only the second is referred to as ‘breakout’. Thanks Ted From: David Ofelt <00000d9f58951f93-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I think there are two different concepts that end up being colloquially referred to as breakout. The first is that case you detaiil below- a set of parallel media lanes that can be grouped in various ways- either as a single unified PHY or as a number of slower PHYs. The other case is a module that happens to hold a number of PHYs that are completely independent- like a QSFP-DD/OSFP module that has 4 x 100GBASE-LR optics. I’m Ok with declaring that “breakout” just covers the first case and your list is a good start at scoping the definition, but if we do that, I’d like us to figure out a name for the other case. I find that when I talk to people about modules- it is important to clearly address both cases, since many folks have only one of the cases in mind and conversations can get confusing.
-- DaveO From: John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx> [External Email. Be cautious of content] All, As I explore the scope for the Beyond 400 GbE effort, I have been having a number of conversations related to “breakout” While we all discuss it – I have never seen some actual formal definition that is agreed upon within 802.3. So I would like to get some input. I am going to start with breakout actually does and solicit input before proposing some definition to potentially use. I see break out of the following –
FR / LR / ER optics – I don’t see as being part of breakout. Thoughts? John To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGECDC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGECDC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGECDC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGECDC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGECDC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGECDC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGECDC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGECDC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGECDC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGECDC&A=1 |