RE: [EFM] Changes to 100BASE-X and 1000BASE-X PCS, 10G RS
Bruce,
I didn't write, "I would strongly prefer...." I wrote, "For my part, if we
were going to allow OAM to be an option, I would strongly prefer...."
There is a world of difference.
I concur with your point.
jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Bruce
> Tolley
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 11:59 AM
> To: jonathan.thatcher@ieee.org
> Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] Changes to 100BASE-X and 1000BASE-X PCS, 10G RS
>
>
>
> Jonathan:
>
> You wrote
> "I would strongly prefer that it be an option like 802.3ad, which a
> customer can readily identify as a supported feature on a
> spec sheet, and
> not an option that is
> buried in a PIC table and not readily exposed to the buyer."
>
> I would argue that the slicing and dicing of the issue forces
> vendors to
> start spelling out which clauses are and are not supported in
> the data sheet.
>
>
> Bruce
> At 11:14 AM 3/3/2004 -0800, Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>
> >With great fear I here tread....
> >
> >As we prepare for this discussion a 2 weeks, let us remember
> that one of the
> >principal reasons for standardizing 100M and 1G optics at
> 10km is that the
> >parts available from the industry (when we started) could
> not be assured to
> >be mutually interoperable. In many cases, under many
> conditions, they were
> >probably interoperable. To create a standard that assures backward
> >interoperability with parts that were themselves
> >not-necessarily-interoperable... well, I think that this
> might be an effort
> >in futility.
> >
> >In short, even if we choose to remove the OAM requirements,
> there is no
> >assurance that even with the an identical PCS that the parts
> will "play
> >nice."
> >
> >For my part, if we were going to allow OAM to be an option,
> I would strongly
> >prefer that it be an option like 802.3ad, which a customer
> can readily
> >identify as a supported feature on a spec sheet, and not an
> option that is
> >buried in a PIC table and not readily exposed to the buyer.
> Yes, I realize
> >that 802.3ad was a project, not a clause. Yes, I understand
> that doing
> >anything like this with OAM is not possible at this stage.
> That would have
> >required a separate project.
> >
> >jonathan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf
> Of Howard
> > > Frazier
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:38 AM
> > > To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > > Subject: RE: [EFM] Changes to 100BASE-X and 1000BASE-X PCS, 10G RS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Forwarded from Piers Dawe.
> > >
> > > Subject: RE: [EFM] Changes to 100BASE-X and 1000BASE-X PCS, 10G RS
> > > Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 15:07:10 -0000
> > > From: <piers_dawe@agilent.com>
> > > To: <benjamin.brown@ieee.org>, <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>,
> > > <stds-802-3@ieee.org>
> > > Ben,
> > >
> > > This is not JUST a project for the access network and
> that is not the
> > > "whole reason they exist". 100BASE-LX10 and
> 1000BASE-LX10 like PHYs
> > > existed before EFM, and we should be standardizing them
> > > right. We have
> > > known all along that they have general applicability.
> Remember, 100
> > > Mb/s on SMF started as a separate call for interest and was
> > > rolled into
> > > EFM for synergy.
> > >
> > > The EFM "environment" is not so different. It's the same
> frames, same
> > > rates, same wavelength, same fiber type as "legacy"
> 1000BASE-LX and
> > > 10GBASE-L. Same optional OAM proposed for all. Interoperable and
> > > interchangeable PMDs. So why would the PCS be different?
> > >
> > > I don't believe that the proposed mandatory PHY changes are
> > > "particularly tuned" even for the access market and I
> don't see your
> > > "less applicable - more applicable" trade off. By demanding
> > > currently
> > > non-standard behavior they go against Broad Market Potential,
> > > Compatibility and Economic Feasibility even for the access
> > > market. They
> > > make it harder to connect a "legacy Ethernet" data backbone
> > > network to a
> > > not-quite-Ethernet "EFM" access network. Do NEMs have to
> make boxes
> > > where some long wavelength GBIC ports have one PCS
> behavior and other
> > > long wavelength GBIC ports have the opposite behavior? I
> suppose a
> > > service provider can go to ATM and back to join the two!
> > >
> > >
> > > Let's quote from the 100BASE-FX over dual Single Mode
> Fibre Call For
> > > Interest of two years ago. Remember, as the web site
> > > http://www.ieee802.org/3/smfx_study/index.html says,
> > > The 100BASE-FX over dual Single Mode Fibre Call For Interest
> > > resulted in
> > > additional work being added to IEEE P802.3ah Ethernet in the
> > > First Mile
> > > task Force.
> > >
> > > >From EFM minutes
> > > <http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/mar02/minutes_03_2002.pdf>
> > > http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/mar02/minutes_03_2002.pdf
> > > Additional Objective: p2p 100Mb/s on SM fiber
> > > Bruce T. presented a motion:
> > > To add an objective to the family of physical layer
> specifications
> > > 100Base-X >3D 10 km over SM fiber
> > > ALL - for 105; Against 4; Abstained 22
> > > 802.3voters - for 59; Against 3; Abstained 9
> > > Motion passed
> > >
> > > And from 802.3 minutes
> > > <http://www.ieee802.org/3/minutes/mar02/minutes_0302.pdf>
> > > http://www.ieee802.org/3/minutes/mar02/minutes_0302.pdf :
> > > 802.3ah motion #1
> > > Add an objective to the family of physical layer
> specifications:
> > > 100BASE-X >3D 10 km over SM Fiber
> > > All Y:105 N: 4 A:22
> > > .3 Y:59 N: 3 A: 9
> > > Motion Passed
> > >
> > > And these quotations below (my emphasis) are from the20
> > > 100 Mb/s over Dual SM Fiber 100 Mb/s over Dual SM Fiber
> > > Proposed PAR & 5 Criteria Proposed PAR & 5 Criteria
> > > <http://www.ieee802.org/3/smfx_study/public/jonsson_1_0302.pdf>
> > > http://www.ieee802.org/3/smfx_study/public/jonsson_1_0302.pdf
> > >
> > > Scope:
> > > - Make amendment to Clause 26, 100BASE-FX, to include a
> > > 100Mbps dual SMF
> > > PMD
> > >
> > > Broad Market Potential Broad Market Potential
> > > ...
> > > 100BASE-X SMF is main candidate for volume applications in:
> > > - Residential (FTTH)
> > > - Commercial (SME, Shopping malls, etc.)
> > > - Industrial ( <http://ethernet.industrial-networking.com>
> > > http://ethernet.industrial-networking.com)
> > > o Rapid growth anticipated in emerging areas
> > > - fiber to the radio base stations (FTTR)
> > > - fiber to WLAN HotSpots (FTTW)
> > > - fiber links connecting office desktops (FTTD)
> > >
> > > Compatibility
> > >
> > > 100BASE-X PCS & PMA assumed, and the 802.3 MAC
> > > - No changes whatsoever to the MAC
> > > - PHY identical to current 100Mbps Std except for a new PMD
> > > - No change to Clause 24
> > > - Retain all state machines, 4B/5B coding etc. of 100BASE-X
> > > o Only need to extend Clause 26, 100BASE-FX PMD, to include SMF
> > > o Physical medium compatibility through SMF
> > > - Compatible with existing 1000BASE-LX
> > > - Provides upgrade paths to higher speeds and multiple
> > > wavelengths, with
> > > fiber plant untouched
> > >
> > > - 100Mbps optical SMF components exist
> > > - 'Pre-standard' links and systems already in commercial operation
> > >
> > > 100Mbps and EFM
> > > o EFM deals with major additions to the 802.3 Std
> > > o 100BASE-X dual SMF only requires minimal additions to Clause 26
> > > o 100BASE-X dual SMF is already happening, and will have
> applicability
> > > even outside EFM
> > > o However, 100BASE-X SMF will be used in the public
> access application
> > > space
> > > o 100BASE-X PCS is transparent to EFM OAM
> > > - Neither "OAM in Frames" nor "OAM on Preamble" require
> any changes to
> > > 100BASE-X PCS
> > >
> > > Piers
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> Bruce Tolley
> Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
> Gigabit Systems Business Unit
> Cisco Systems
> 170 West Tasman Drive
> MS SJ B2
> San Jose, CA 95134-1706
> internet: btolley@cisco.com
> ip phone: 408-526-4534
>
> "Don't put your hiking boots in the oven unless you plan on
> eating them."
>
> Colin Fletcher, The Complete Walker
>
>
>