Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3_CU4HDD] [802.3_NGBASET] IEEE 802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T TF Arch AdHoc conf call - reminder for Monday, June 20, 2016 9:00 AM-10:00 AM PDT.

[BCCâ??ed STDS-802-3-CU4HDD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (backplane) to inform, but not to spam them further]

 

Dear Arthur,

 

2.5G/5G is in TF review (in prep for WG ballot in July â?? with hope that is), closing EoW.

It would be good for your position to be known consistently on both â??T and â??K.

 

Yong.

 

From: Arthur Marris [mailto:arthurm@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 7:22 AM
To: STDS-802-3-NGBASET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGBASET] IEEE 802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T TF Arch AdHoc conf call - reminder for Monday, June 20, 2016 9:00 AM-10:00 AM PDT.

 

William,

   If the vast majority of people all agree that having 2.5G Ethernet (in all its various and future forms) support link fault signalling is the right thing to do then fair enough. My concern is that this has slipped in un-noticed and people are not aware of the extra requirement.

 

   Also I am not sure that 2.5GBASE-T â??needsâ?? link fault signalling. My understanding is that it is unnecessary for 2.5GBASE-T but is required for 10GBASE-T and possibly for 5GBASE-T.

 

Arthur

 

From: William Lo [mailto:williaml@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 21 June 2016 15:06
To: Arthur Marris
Cc: STDS-802-3-NGBASET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGBASET] IEEE 802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T TF Arch AdHoc conf call - reminder for Monday, June 20, 2016 9:00 AM-10:00 AM PDT.

 

Hi Arthur,

 

I would have preferred to simply take the 1G PCS, RS, and MAC and simply scale it to 2.5G.  However 802.3bz chose to scale down 10G RS and MAC for 2.5G.  I don't think it is a good idea to have RS attached to one kind of PHY not support link fault signaling while supporting it in another when both PHYs are operating the same speed.

 

Note that 802.3cb could simply scale down 10GBASE-R to 2.5G and avoided all this link fault signaling issue but didn't.  We are aware of the scaled up 1000BASE-X solutions in the field for 2.5G and crafted something something that will allow legacy solutions to be compatible (see annex 127B) and yet align to the decisions that 802.3bz task force has made.  

 

I do not think it is justified to ask 2.5GBASE-T to disable something that it needs simply for the sake that some legacy non-IEEE sped up version of 1000BASE-X, RS, MAC can't handle fault signaling. If there is a market demand to connect up this legacy interface to 2.5GBASE-T there are vendor specific workarounds that can be applied.

 

Thanks,

William


On Jun 21, 2016, at 04:35, Arthur Marris <arthurm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

William,

   I think 802.3cb should not have modified the 1000BASE-X PCS. There are existing 2.5G implementations using the 1000BASE-X PCS speeded up and I think 802.3cb should just have re-used 1000BASE-X and not invented something new.

 

   Existing 1G implementations have two problems with the requirement to implement link fault signaling:

1.     Encoding sequence ordered sets

2.     Implementing the link fault state machine which generates remote fault on reception of local fault

 

    Because there is no requirement to signal link interruption the link fault state machine is un-necessary for 2.5G data-rates and just adds extra complexity and causes potential inter-operability problems with existing 2.5G implementations.

 

Arthur

 

From: William Lo [mailto:williaml@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 20 June 2016 17:41
To: Arthur Marris; STDS-802-3-NGBASET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_NGBASET] IEEE 802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T TF Arch AdHoc conf call - reminder for Monday, June 20, 2016 9:00 AM-10:00 AM PDT.

 

Hi Arthur,

 

For 2.5GBASE-X link fault signaling will be there. It lets 802.3cb align with 802.3bz.

Task force decided to keep it in for 802.3cb.

http://www.ieee802.org/3/cb/public/may16/Lo_3cb_01a_0516.pdf

 

Also 802.3cb is designed to be compatible with 1000BASE-X PCS running 2.5x faster.

This is true even if a 2.5GBASE-X PCS sends out link fault signaling.  The 2.5GBASE-X PCS

link fault signaling is designed to look like idles to the 1000ABSE-X PCS.

See Annex 127B in the 802.3cb for further description.

 

For 5GBASE-R the link fault signaling is already baked in since it adopts the 10GBASE- R PCS.

 

Thanks,

William

 

 

From: Arthur Marris [mailto:arthurm@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:54 AM
To: STDS-802-3-NGBASET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGBASET] IEEE 802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T TF Arch AdHoc conf call - reminder for Monday, June 20, 2016 9:00 AM-10:00 AM PDT.

 

I have prepared the attached presentation for todayâ??s ad hoc call.

 

I have also submitted a comment against draft 3.1 to request making link fault signalling optional for 2.5G and 5G data rates.

 

From: Peter Jones (petejone) [mailto:petejone@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 20 June 2016 05:05
To: STDS-802-3-NGBASET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGBASET] IEEE 802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T TF Arch AdHoc conf call - reminder for Monday, June 20, 2016 9:00 AM-10:00 AM PDT.

 

Folks,

 

Reminder for tomorrow.

 

Iâ??m expecting a discussion of an unresolved negative vote from May in Whistler. The comment is i-56 (see below from http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/bz/comments/8023bz_D30_approved.pdf).

 

Regards

Peter

 

<image001.jpg>

 

_________________________________________________

Peter Jones 

802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T Task Force Arch Ad Hoc Chair           

_________________________________________________

 

 

-----Original Appointment-----
From: Peter Jones (petejone)
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 10:17 PM
To: Peter Jones (petejone); STDS-802-3-NGBASET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Brillhart, Theodore; Liuyun (Daniel); Arthur Marris; sebastien2.vitrant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sambasivan, Sam; derek.cassidy@xxxxxx; Khan, Muhammad; Clark Carty (ccarty); Pachon, Arturo; Goh, Chee Kiang; Andrew Jimenez; Kamal Dalmia; Jon_Lewis@xxxxxxxx; Paul VANDERLAAN; Amrik Bains (ambains); Victor Renteria; Brian Holden; Elizabeth Kochuparambil (edonnay); Moffitt, Bryan; anna.an@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; George Zimmerman; Goel, Pankaj; Herman, Todd; kumaran.krishnasamy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Matt SCHUMACHER
Subject: IEEE 802.3bz 2.5/5GBASE-T TF Arch AdHoc conf call
When: Monday, June 20, 2016 9:00 AM-10:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).
Where: Webex

 

 

Hi Folks,

 

This meeting is back by request. We have some Sponsor Ballot comments to look into before the interim on June 27th. The timeslot has been moved to accommodate some key people.

 

Agenda information will be provided prior to each meeting.

 

Please familiarize yourself with the meeting guidelines and patent policy before the meeting.

 

 



-- Do not delete or change any of the following text. --

 
Host key: 399004


Join WebEx meeting
Meeting number: 205 797 364 
Meeting password: 8023bz (802329 -- On Phone) 


Join by phone 
+1-408-525-6800 Call-in toll number (US/Canada) 
+1-866-432-9903 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada) 
Access code: 205 797 364 
Global call-in numbers  |  Toll-free calling restrictions  
 
 
Can't join the meeting? Contact support.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note that this WebEx service allows audio and other information sent during the session to be recorded, which may be discoverable in a legal matter. You should inform all meeting attendees prior to recording if you intend to record the meeting.

 

Â