| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Velu, That’s the concept behind using sequence ordered sets. The protocol is already specified and would only need minimal modifications to support “at speed” exchanges. Cheers, From: Velu Pillai [mailto:vpillai@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Hi Arthur, CL37 is a 8b10b code-word based page exchange, hence using it for next generation optical PHYs is not possible. We can come up with a new clause to do “at speed” auto-negotiation. In back-plane it will be used after the training sequence to exchange abilities and request for next generation PHYs. Clause 73 will classify the PHY and this new clause will handle the advanced abilities. And in Optical PHYs, this will act as the primary auto-negotiation. This way a common negotiation Clause can exist between the Back-plane/twinax and Optical PHYs. Regards, Velu Pillai From: Arthur Marris [mailto:arthurm@xxxxxxxxxxx] Brad, Let me make a few comments. For 802.3bj it is necessary to use Clause 73 for auto-negotiation because Clause 73 already supports port types for four-lane twinax and back-plane. If new 100G port types are being added for these media, they need to be included in Clause 73. Clause 73 also gives you FEC negotiation for free. Clause 73 clearly does not work over optical media. You can use ordered sets for exchanging ability and requests, but this only works if both sides of the link are running at the same speed and the error ratio is not too bad. For next generation optics you are going to need to decide whether you need to negotiate speed in addition to determining FEC operation (for example you might want to negotiate between 40GBASE-SR4 and 100GBASE-SR4). If you do decide to negotiate speed you could consider re-using Clause 37 for auto-negotiation (which operates at a 1.25G data-rate). If you are not negotiating speed but are just concerned about bit errors, then the task being performed is really link training rather than ability resolution. Arthur. From: Brad Booth [mailto:Brad_Booth@xxxxxxxx] Stephen, It depends on the FEC protocol adopted, implementation requirement, and the associated latency. The discussion got started around the idea of using Clause 73 AN for FEC ability exchange in the optical domain. Considering we’re still in the study group phase, some of those questions cannot be answered as we have not adopted an FEC proposal. If an exchange protocol is required, then IMHO the use of sequence ordered sets would be preferred over creating of a new autoneg protocol. Cheers, |