Paul,
Agreed, but my question was specifically
about the rate itself.
John
From: Paul Kolesar [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 5:57
PM
To:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [HSSG] MAC Data Rate
of Operation Objective
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)?
John