John,
I'd like to point out that the transport
mechanisms to achieve a scalable interface that you mentioned might also
be used for a fixed rate interface. An additional attribute that
the scalable approach likely needs to identify is the scaling granularity.
For example, "a scalable MAC data rate in increments of 10Gb/s".
We need not get into the particular
means of transporting these incremental channels in the objectives.
Regards,
Paul Kolesar
CommScope Enterprise® Solutions
1300 East Lookout Drive
Richardson, TX 75082
Phone: 972.792.3155
Fax: 972.792.3111
eMail: pkolesar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
John DAmbrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
08/14/2006 04:20 PM
Please respond to
John DAmbrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
[HSSG] MAC Data Rate of Operation Objective
All,
In regards to proposed MAC data rates, I
have seen two basic proposals
Proposal A) 100 Gb/s
Proposal B) Scalable Solution
Proposal A supports the traditional 10x increase
in speed.
Proposal B, as presently discussed, is unbounded.
(The following are only my observations of statements made on the
reflector by others) The lowest limit proposed was a 4x10 approach
for 40 Gb/s. No upper limits have been proposed. It has been
suggested that this approach should use existing PMDs, but there have been
also been comments regarding use of 10G, 25G, and 40G lambdas, but that
carriers would want to leverage
their existing DWDM layer, which mean baudrate in the 9.95-12.5 Gig. Consuming
wavelengths has been brought up as a possible concern. It was also
suggested that the greatest bandwidth demands are on VSR links < 50m
and that the longer reach (>10km) may be able to live with 4x10G. (Data
in support of these observations that could be used to guide the creation
of objectives would be welcome.)
An objective for Proposal A could be similar
to what was done for 10 GbE– Support a speed of 100.000 Gb/s at the MAC/PLS
service interface.
For Proposal B, given its current unbounded
nature and multiple discussion points, I am not sure what would be proposed.
I am looking to the advocates of this proposal to provide some verbiage
to the reflector for discussion. Using the objective above as a basis:
Support a speed greater than 10.000 Gb/s at the MAC/PLS service interface,
would create too broad an objective.
Also for both proposals what are people’s
thoughts on an objective that would specify an optional Media Independent
Interface (MII)?