Hi Ali, Chris,
This is an important discussion which
needs to get resolved quickly.
I would like to ensure that XLAUI / CAUI
maintains its broad market applicability as a simple retimed interface. I
don’t think the current specification methodology prevents it from being
leveraged to build retimed modules. I’ve put together the attached
material to show how retimed interfaces were specified in the past (namely
XFI). In XFI, you’ll notice that the Before Connector and After
Connector specs are similar. 40/100GbE modules may have an analogous
situation, depending on their size and electrical characteristics.
If we need to change the XLAUI / CAUI
specification, we need solid contributions on what needs to change.
Happy Holidays,
Ryan
From: Ali Ghiasi [mailto:aghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: December 22, 2008 5:59 PM
To: Chris Cole
Cc:
STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; John DAmbrosia; Ryan Latchman
Subject: Re: [802.3BA] XLAUI /
CAUI Ad Hoc
Chris
I just wanted to illustrate the difficulty members of 802.3ba would have in
defining host-module interface for 100GBase-LR4/ER4 based on
publicly available information rather than in any way pointing to you for
argument you did not make.
You also say that specific implementation detail are inappropriate for the
IEEE, but CR4/CR10, SR4/SR10 are based on very specific set of
assumptions. The presentation I gave in Dallas, I made some very specific assumption
on the module-host implementation which may be correct
or completely wrong, but we have to make some specific assumption please see
page 5 http://www.ieee802.org/3/ba/public/nov08/ghiasi_01_1108.
Currently xAUI adhoc is defining transmitter mask instead of testing
transmitter with compliance channel, in case the group decides to define
module-host compliance points then a 2nd transmitter mask must be defined at
the output of module compliance board (see 2nd diagram on page 5).
In summary we have to replicate xAUI transmitter and receiver table for host
and module.
Thanks,
Ali