RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps

["Vladimir Senkov" <hangup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps

Good morning,

And what about interpacket gaps, minimum and maximum frame sizes, etc.
I think "private line" is a good marketing term that will sell, but it doesn't always mean that all customers want is to buy lambdas . . .

For example . . . what is going to eat more BW, OAM or interpacket gaps? It depends on customer traffic and on OAM traffic as well. It's hard to say right now, but for typical internet browsing application (just an example) or voice over something (just another example) it very well maybe that interpacket gaps will eat more than OAM :)

So why is that a problem to have inband OAM? Somebody mentioned that customers will measure BW and will not be happy if it's not "a full gig". Well, If I stick a fiber between two of my full gig smartbits ports and start sending some data in most cases it will not be "a full gig" :) depends how you define "a full gig".

If there is no interpacket gap in EFM please do not slam me too hard :) i assumed it was still there.

Regards,
Vladimir.

PS: It is impossible to measure Ethernet performance characteristics in Mbps, Gbps, etc anyway, so IF we are thinking about Ethernet first mile . . . let's think Ethernet!

-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Menard [mailto:fmenard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 9:05 AM
To: 'Denton Gentry'; bob.barrett
Cc: 'stds-802-3-efm'
Subject: RE: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps

Or for that matter, what about ARP traffic unsolicited from my CPE
devices ?

-=Francois=-

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Denton
Gentry
Sent: September 26, 2001 3:12 PM
To: bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: stds-802-3-efm
Subject: [EFM] 1 Gbps != 999.9 Mbps

> Service providers have a desire to offer a full 1GE service and not
> use any of it's bandwidth for OAM. The rule of conservation of
> bandwidth means the OAM needs to go somewhere other then in the
> bandwidth reserved for the 1GE payload. I take it as read that 100%
> utilisation of a 1GE is unlikely, but that is not the point. The point

> is that service providers want to offer 1GE service period, not a
> 999.9Mbit service.

  Does the existence of the Mac Control PAUSE frame therefore make
Ethernet unsuitable for service providers?

Denton Gentry
Dominet Systems